Introduction
Guidelines are the bridge between science and clinical practice [1]. Science is a
dynamic process and it is continuously evolving. Consequently, there is a continual
development of new insights necessitation updates of existing guidelines. For this
update, the authors concentrated on studies with level of 1 and 2 evidence. All references
are marked with the level of evidence, according to the Oxford classification. In
general “Recommendation Grade D” does not constitute a recommendation, but in some
instances it is shown in the text to indicate lack of quality data. We recommended
all readers to download the original statements and recommendations [2], for fully
appreciation of the Update Guidelines on Laparoscopic Hernia Surgery.
Updates should include issues that were not yet sufficiently covered in the original
guidelines or those which have gained increased clinical importance. For this reason,
the Update includes four new chapters: single port surgery, convalescence, costs and
training. The update process was started in March 2013. All the authors were requested
to commence revision of their chapters between January 2009 and September 30th 2013.
An Update Consensus Conference was held on October 23–26, 2013 in Windhoek/Namibia,
following which, the first versions of the updates were presented to the delegates
and extensively discussed. Based on these discussions the definite update was formulated
and circulated for approval by all the involved experts.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Eccles M, Mason J (2001) How to develop cost-conscious guidelines. Health Technol
Assess 5(16):1–69. Reviews
Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH,
Klinge U, Kockerling F, Kuhry E, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde
S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Sauerland S, Schug-Pass C, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D,
Chowbey P (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment
of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25(9):2773–284
Chapter 1: Perioperative management: evidence for antibiotic and thromboembolic prophylaxis
in endoscopic/laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery?
Agneta montgomery
Antibiotic prophylaxis
Search terms: “Antibiotic prophylaxis*” AND “laparoscopy” AND “inguinal hernia”; “Antibiotic
prophylaxis*” AND “TEP”; “Antibiotic prophylaxis*” AND “TAPP”; “Antibiotic prophylaxis*”
AND “randomized controlled trial” AND “inguinal hernia”; “Antibiotic prophylaxis*”
AND “meta-analysis” AND “inguinal hernia”.
Thromboembolic prophylaxis
“Thromboembolic prophylaxis*” AND “laparoscopy” AND “inguinal hernia; “Thromboembolic
prophylaxis*” AND “TEP”; “Thromboembolic prophylaxis*” AND “TAPP”; “Thromboembolic
prophylaxis*” AND “randomized controlled trial” AND “inguinal hernia”; “Thromboembolic
prophylaxis*” AND “meta-analysis” AND “inguinal hernia”.
Search machines
PubMed and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialized register and reference
lists of the included studies were search for studies for potential inclusion.
New publications
A total of 45 studies were identified as Level 1 or Level 2. No RCTs including TEP
or TAPP with antibiotic or thromboembolic prophylaxis as primary outcome were identified.
Three RCT studies on TEP or TAPP, having antibiotic treatment in the protocol and
including more than 200 patients, were identified [1, 2, 3]. The first compared TEP
to Lichtenstein [1] and the other two compared different mesh types in TAPP repair
[2, 3]. Two reported on thromboembolic complications [2, 3]. Four meta-analyses on
antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of surgical site infections as a primary outcome
were identified [4–7]. All included only open hernia repairs. No meta-analyses on
thromboembolic complications were identified.
Antibiotic prophylaxis
No new statements or recommendations.
Thromboembolic prophylaxis
No new statements or recommendations.
Comments
An update of the Cochrane report analyzing open hernia repairs, non-mesh and mesh
repairs, was published in 2012 (search until October 2011) including 7,843 hernia
operations in 17 studies [4]. The overall infection rates were 3.1 % in the prophylaxis
group and 4.5 % in the control group (OR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.50–0.82). The subgroup with
mesh had infection rates of 2.4 and 4.2 % in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively
(OR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.38–0.81). The recommendation in this report was: “Antibiotic prophylaxis
for elective inguinal hernia repair cannot be universally recommended for open hernia
repair. Neither can the administration be recommended against when high rates of wound
infection are observed.”
The three other meta-analyses are all performed on mesh repairs and all except one
study is included in the Cochrane report [5–7]. They all conclude that antibiotic
prophylaxis is beneficial for protection of surgical site infections in open mesh
repair.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Langeveld HR, van’t Riet M, Weidema WF, Stassen LP, Steyerberg EW, Lange J, Bonjer
HJ, Jeekel J (2010) Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein
(the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 251(5):819–824. (1B)
Bittner R, Schmedt CG, Leibl BJ, Schwarz J (2011) Early postoperative and one year
results of a randomized controlled trial comparing the impact of extralight titanized
polypropylene mesh and traditional heavyweight polypropylene mesh on pain and seroma
production in laparoscopic hernia repair (TAPP). World J Surg 35(8):1791–1797. (1B)
Bittner R, Leibl BJ, Kraft B, Schwarz J (2011) One-year results of a prospective,
randomised clinical trial comparing four meshes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
(TAPP). Hernia 15(5):503–510. (1B)
Sanchez-Manuel FJ, Lozano-García J, Seco-Gil JL (2012) Antibiotic prophylaxis for
hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 Issue 2. Art. CD003769. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003769.pub4.
(1A)
Mazaki T, Mado K, Masuda H, Shiono M (2013) Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention
of surgical site infection after tension-free hernia repair: a Bayesian and frequentist
meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 217(5):788–801. (1A)
Li JF, Lai DD, Zhang XD, Zhang AM, Sun KX, Luo HG, Yu Z (2012) Meta-analysis of the
effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of postoperative complications
after tension-free hernioplasty. Can J Surg 55(1):27–32. (1A)
Yin Y, Song T, Liao B, Luo Q, Zhou Z (2012) Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing
open mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis. Am Surg 78(3):359–365. (1A)
Chapter 2: Technical key points in TAPP repair
Jan F. Kukleta, Reinhard Bittner
Search terms: “Inguinal hernia“, “TAPP repair“, “TAPP”, “TAPP technique”, “hernia
repair”, “endoscopic repair”. Filters: Engl., Ger., Ital., French, Port., Span. RCT,
Meta-analysis, multicenter study, systematic review, controlled trial.
Search machines
PubMed, Medline and reference lists of articles selected for inclusion.
New publications
Of 1,684 papers involved with “endoscopic repair”, to “TAPP Hernia” with 355 and TAPP
repair with 305. Of the 176 contributions to “TAPP technique” 37 were published in
the last 3 years. (18 RCT’s, 3 meta-analysis and 16 reviews).
Comments
Due to the present structure of the guidelines some of the fundamental technical key
points of TAPP repair like the mesh choice, mesh size, slitting/non-slitting and fixation
/non fixation are discussed in depth in other chapters. These key points do influence
obviously the patient’s outcome and represent an important part of the TAPP’s best
practice.
In several instances Recommendation Grade D is mentioned. In general “Recommendation
Grade D” is no recommendation at all, due to weak evidence. Nevertheless it is used
in this text to demonstrate that some important data are still missing.
Which is the safest and most effective method of establishing pneumoperitoneum and
obtaining access to the abdominal cavity?
New statements—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 1B
In thin patients (BMI < 27), the direct trocar insertion is a safe alternative to
the Veress needle technique (stronger evidence).
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendation below.
Grade C
The direct trocar insertion (DTI) can be used in order to establish pneumoperitoneum
as a safe alternative to Veress needle, Hasson approach or optical trocar, if patient’s
risk factors are considered and the surgeon is appropriately trained (new recommendation).
What kind of trocars should be used?
Is there any relation between the trocar type and risk of injury and/or trocar hernias?
New statement—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 2B
Use of 10-mm trocars or larger may predispose to hernias, especially in the umbilical
region or in the oblique abdominal wall (Stronger evidence).
New recommendation—identical to previous except recommendation below.
Grade B
Fascial defects of 10 mm or bigger should be closed (Stronger evidence).
Is clinical examination efficient enough?
What is the role of TAPP and other techniques in reliable assessment?
New statements—identical to previous (but additional references, see comment).
New recommendations—identical to previous.
Peritoneal closure
New statements—identical to previous.
New recommendations—identical to previous except statement below.
Grade B
A thorough closure of peritoneal incision or bigger peritoneal tears should be achieved
(Stronger evidence).
Comments
After more than two decades of practicing TAPP repair, the technique per se is standardized
to a great extent. Although only minimal changes in evidence levels and no completely
new insights were to be expected in the time frame of the last 3 years, the content
of the guidelines must be periodically scrutinized, re-examined and if necessary corrected.
In order to reinforce the validity of existing recommendations and to improve the
adoption of it by the world-wide surgical community it was sometimes necessary to
interpret the evidence to make it fit better to everyday life. In paragraph “Which
is the safest and most effective method of establishing pneumoperitoneum and obtaining
access to the abdominal cavity?” there is a new input of stronger evidence (1B) [2]
and 2B [3] concerning the direct trocar insertion. Nevertheless the authors defend
their recommendation Grade A “When establishing pneumoperitoneum … extreme caution
is required”. Because of the potential risk of a major injury the recommendation based
on the statement “the direct trocar insertion is a safe alternative to the Veress
needle technique” is intentionally downgraded to grade C: The direct trocar insertion
(DTI) can be used in order to establish pneumoperitoneum as a safe alternative to
Veress needle, open access or optical trocar, if patient’s risk factors are considered
and the surgeon is appropriately trained.
The paragraph “What kind of trocars should be used? Is there any relation between
the trocar type and risk of injury and/or trocar hernias?” [5–8] reached stronger
evidence for to refrain from the use of cutting trocars in order to diminish the local
trauma and prevent the development of possible trocar hernias. The recommendation
Grade C “Trocar sites with fascial defects of 10 mm or larger can be closed” was upgraded
to Grade B “Fascial defects of 10 mm or bigger should be closed.
The recommendations concerning clinical examination and anticipation of undiagnosed
contralateral hernias gained additional support and insight from literature [9–11].
The previous recommendation on peritoneal closure already connoted verbally the importance
of the task, although assigned to Grade C. To emphasize the fact the recommendation
was upgraded to Grade B.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Ahmad G, O’Flynn H, Duffy JM, Phillips K, Watson A (2012) Laparoscopic entry techniques.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD006583. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub3. (1A)
Jiang X, Anderson C, Schnatz PF (2012) The safety of direct trocar versus Veress needle
for laparoscopic entry: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Laparoendosc
Adv Surg Tech 22(4):362–370. (1B)
Agresta F, Mazzarolo G, Bedin N (2012) Direct trocar insertion for laparoscopy. JSLS
16:255–259. (2B)
Dunne N, Booth MI, Dehn TCB (2011) Establishing pneumoperitoneum: Verres or Hasson?
The debate continues. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93: 22–24. (3)
Owens M, Barry M, Janjua AZ, Winter DC (2011) A systematic review of laparoscopic
port site hernias in gastrointestinal surgery. Surgeon 9(4):218–224. (2A)
Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Bisgaard T (2011) Low risk of trocar site hernia
repair 12 years after primary laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 25:3678–3682. doi:
10.1007/s00464-011-1776-0. (2A)
Mordecai SC, Warren OWN, Warren SJ (2012) Radially expanding laparoscopic trocar ports
significantly reduce postoperative pain in all age groups. Surg Endosc 26:843–846.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1963-z. (3)
Bhoyrul S, Payne J, Steffes B, Swanstrom L, Way LW (2000). A randomized prospective
study of radially expanding trocars in laparoscopic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 4(4):392–397.
(2B)
Griffin KJ, Harris S, Tang TY, Skelton N, Reed JB, Harris AM (2010) Incidence of contralateral
occult inguinal hernia found at the time of laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal
(TAPP) repair. Hernia 14(4):345–349. doi: 10.1007/s10029-010-0651-6. (2B)
van den Heuvel B, Beudeker N, van den Broek J, Bogte A, Dwars BJ (2013) The incidence
and natural course of occult inguinal hernias during TAPP repair: Repair is beneficial.
Surg Endosc 27(11):4142–4146 (3)
Clark JJ, Limm W, Wong LL (2011) What is the likelihood of requiring contralateral
inguinal hernia repair after unilateral repair? Am J Surg 202(6):754–757. (3)
Chapter 3: Technical key points in TEP
Ferdinand Köckerling, Pradeep Chowbey, David Lomanto
Search terms: “inguinal hernia”; “femoral hernia”; “total extraperitoneal patch plasty”;
“TEP”; “preperitoneal access”; “space creation”; “peritoneal tears”; “complications”.
Search machines
In PubMed, Medline, and the Cochran Library as well as in the reference lists of the
included studies were searched for relevant studies.
New publications
A total of 12 new studies were identified for inclusion. Nine level 1 studies deal
with the local extraperitoneal pain treatment during TEP. Two level 3 and one level
4 studies are supplementing the knowledge about the technical key points of direct
and indirect sac handling and drainage in TEP repair.
How should a large direct sac be handled?
New statements—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 4
Alternatively to fixation of the extended fascia transversalis to Copper’s ligament
the direct inguinal hernia defect can be closed by a pre-tied suture loop (new statement).
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendation below.
Grade D
As alternative the primary closure of direct inguinal hernia defects with a pre-tied
suture loop can be used (new recommendation).
Comments
Each of the M2 or M3 direct defects, according to the European Hernia Society (EHS),
were systematically closed prior to the introduction of the prosthetic mesh [1]. Grasping
and inversion of the attenuated transversalis fascia at its apex, using a laparoscopic
forceps and plication of the transversalis fascia by placing a tight endoloop of polydioxanone
(PDS) at its base. In total, endoloops of PDS were used to close the weakened transversalis
fascia in 76 cases (30 M3, 44 M2 and two M1). Only one patient (1.3 %) complained
of a residual seroma formation, which was still clinically present at 3 month post-operatively,
but was not symptomatic. There were only two minor post-operative complications, which
occurred in the same patient and were not related to the endoloop technique. Finally,
no patient complained of chronic groin pain and there was no hernia recurrence after
a median follow up of 18 months.
How should a large indirect sac be handled?
New statement—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 3
Transection of a large indirect sac does not lead to significant differences in postoperative
pain, length of hospital stay and recurrence, but to a significant higher seroma rate
(new statement).
New recommendation—identical to previous except recommendation below.
Grade C
A large indirect sac may be ligated proximally and divided distally without the risk
of a higher postoperative pain and recurrence rate, but with an increased postoperative
seroma rate (new recommendation).
Comments
520 TEP repairs with indirect inguinal sac were performed in 498 patients. The patients
were classified into two groups: the transected sac group with 269 patients (275 cases)
and the completely reduced sac group with 230 patients (245 cases) [2]. Statistical
analysis between the two groups showed no significant differences in postoperative
pain, length of hospital stay, and recurrence, except for postoperative seromas, which
were more frequent in the transected sac group (24 of 275) than the completely reduced
sac group (6 of 245; p = 0.002).
Should a drain be used after a TEP repair? Should seromas be aspirated?
New statement—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 3
Drain after TEP significantly reduces the incidence of seroma formation with increasing
the risk of infection or recurrence (new statement).
New recommendation—identical to previous except recommendation below.
Grade C
A closed-suction drain can be used to reduce the risk of seroma formation without
increased risk of infection (new recommendation).
Comments
In 929 patients (1,753 hernias), drain was put in 849 patients (1,607 hernias) and
no drain was put in 80 patients (146 hernias) [3]. Follow-up ranged from 9 to 45 months.
Seroma formation was significantly lower in the drain group (12/1,607; 0.75 %) compared
with the non-drain group (22/146; 15.1 %) (p < 0.001). Both the groups were comparable
in pain scores, conversion to open, hospital stay, and days taken to return to normal
activity and recurrence rates. There was no infection in either group.
Has extraperitoneal local anesthetic treatment during TEP a positive effect on postoperative
pain? New (added) question
New statement (added)
Level 1 A
Extraperitoneal bupivancaine treatment during endoscopic TEP inguinal hernioplasty
is not more efficacious for the reduction of pain than placebo.
New recommendation (added)
Grade A
Extraperitoneal bupivacaine treatment during endoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair
for the reduction of postoperative pain should not be performed.
Comments
Tong et al. (2013) [4] reviewed eight trials that included a total of 373 patients
(5–12). They found no difference between the groups in postoperative pain reduction
following endoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair. The intensity of pain was not significantly
different between the bupivacaine treatment group and the control group. No bupivacaine-related
complications were reported. They concluded, that extraperitoneal bupivaciane treatment
during endoscopic TEP inguinal hernioplasty is not more efficacious for the reduction
of postoperative pain than placebo.
Chapter 3
Berney CR (2012) The Endoloop technique for the primary closure of direct inguinal
hernia defect during the endoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach Hernia 16:301–305.
(4)
Choi YY, Kim Z, Hur KY (2011) Transection of the hernia sac during laparoscopic totally
extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty: is it safe and feasible? J Laparoendosc Adv
Surg Tech 21:149–152. (3)
Ismail M, Garg M, Rajagopal M, Garg P (2009) Impact of closed-suction drain in preperitoneal
space on the incidence of seroma formation after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal
inguinal hernia repair. Surg Laparsc Endosc Percutan Tech 19(3):263–266. (3)
Tong YS, Wu CC, Bai CH, Lee HC, Liang HH, Kuo LJ, Wei PL, Tam KW (2014) Effect of
extraperitoneal bupivacaine analgesia in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials Hernia 18(2):177–183. (1A)
Abbas MH, Hamade A, Choudhry MN, Hamza N, Nadeem R, Ammori BJ (2010) Infiltration
of wounds and extraperitoneal pace with local anesthetic in patients undergoing laparoscopic
totally extraperitoneal repair of unilateral inguinal hernias: a randomized double-blind
placebo-controlled trial. Scand J Surg 99:18–23. (1B)
Bar-Dayan A, Natour M, Bar-Zakai B, Zmora O, Shabtai M, Ayalon A, Kuriansky J (2004)
Preperitoneal bupivacaine attenuates pain following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
Surg Endosc 18:1079–1081. (1B)
Hon SF, Poon CM, Leong HT, Tang YC (2009) Pre-emptive infiltration of bupivacaine
in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernioplasty: a randomized controlled trial.
Hernia 13:53–56. (1B)
Kumar S, Joshi M. Chaudhary S (2009) “Dissectalgia” following TEP, a new entity: its
recognition and treatment. Results of a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hernia
13:591–596. (1B)
O’Riordain DS, Kelly P, Horgan PG, Keane FB, Tanner WA (1998) A randomized controlled
trial of extraperitoneaal bupivacaine analgesia in laparoscopic hernia repair. Am
J Surg 176:254–257. (1B)
Saff GN, Marks RA, Kuroda M, Rozan JP, Hertz R (1998) Analgesic effect of bupivacaine
on extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair. Anesth Analg 87:377–381. (1B)
Subwongcharoen S, Udompornmongkol V (2010) A randomized control trial of levobupivacaine,
bupivacaine versus placebo extraperitoneal infusion in totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic
inguinal hernioplasty. J Surg Res 162:279–283. (1B)
Suvikapakornkul R, Valaivarangkul P, Noiwan P, Phansukphon T (2009) A randomized controlled
trial of preperitoneal bupivacaine instillation for reducing pain following laparoscopic
inguinal herniorrhaphy. Surg Innov 16:117–123. (1B)
Chapter 4: TEP versus TAPP: which is better?
Subodh Kumar, Mahesh C. Misra, Virinder K. Bansal, Devanshu Bansal
Search terms: TAPP, TEP, TAPP versus TEP, Total Extraperitoneal repair, Trans abdominal
Preperitoneal repair, Inguinal hernia
Search machines
Cochrane database, PubMed database, Medline database
New publications
A total of 200 publications were identified and 11 were used.
New statement—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 1A
TAPP has a longer hospital stay compared to TEP (new).
Level 1B
Potentially serious adverse events are rare after both TAPP and TEP (stronger evidence).
TAPP has a longer operation time compared to TEP (new).
Level 2C
TEP has more intra-operative and postoperative surgical complication rate compared
to TAPP (new).
New recommendations—identical with previous except recommendations below.
Grade A
Both techniques are acceptable treatment options for inguinal hernia repair and there
is sufficient data to conclude that both TAPP and TEP are effective methods of laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair (stronger evidence).
Comments
Postoperative/persistent pain
Bansal et al. [7] randomized 314 patients into two groups (TEP, TAPP) and recorded
the postoperative pain score at 6 h, 24 h, 1 week and 6 weeks as well as parenteral
analgesic requirement. TAPP group was associated with a significantly higher pain
score at 6 h, 24 h, 1 week and 6 weeks. Parenteral analgesic requirement was also
found to be significantly higher in the TAPP group. Zanghi et al. [10] prospectively
studied 439 patients undergoing TEP or TAPP repair. Postoperative pain score was higher
in the TAPP group on 1, 7, 30 and 90 days postoperatively.
Visceral injury
In the RCT done by Bansal et al. [7], no major intraoperative complications with no
hollow viscus, bladder injury, or major vascular injury were seen. None of the patients
in either group had any life-threatening complications during the postoperative period
in form of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) or myocardial infarction
(MI).
Deep infection
No incidence of deep infection were seen postoperatively in level 1 and 2 studies
[1–11].
Port site hernia
No incidence of port site hernia were seen postoperatively in level 1 and 2 studies
[1–11].
Seroma
Bansal et al. [7] found a significantly higher incidence of postoperative seroma in
the TEP repair group. Postoperative seroma were managed by observation only.
Scrotal edema
Bansal et al. [7] found a significantly higher incidence of postoperative scrotal
edema in the TAPP repair group.
Operative time
TAPP repair group was associated with a significantly longer operative time compared
to the TEP group [7]. In the population based study by Gass et al. [11], TEP repair
was associated with a significantly longer operating time compared to TAPP group.
Hospital stay
In the meta analysis by Bracale et al. [1], there was a significantly longer postoperative
hospital stay in the TAPP group. Bansal et al. [7] did not find any significant difference
in the postoperative hospital stay between TAPP and TEP repair. Gass et al. [11] also
found a significantly longer hospital stay in the TAPP group.
Conversion rate
Bansal et al. [7] had a single conversion in the TEP group, because the anatomy could
not be defined due to adhesions between peritoneum, posterior rectus sheath, and abdominal
wall fascia, which lead to peritoneal laceration leading to conversion. However, the
repair could be accomplished after conversion to TAPP. Gass et al. [11] found that
unadjusted and risk-adjusted analyses of conversion rates revealed significantly higher
rates for the TEP group, as is reflected by a high odds ratio.
Complication rate
Gass et al. [11] found that patients undergoing TEP had a statistically significant
increased rate of intraoperative complications and postoperative surgical complications.
General postoperative complications were not statistically different between the two
methods.
Recurrence rate
Bansal et al. [7] had one recurrence in TAPP group (0.3 %), where mesh was found to
have migrated into the dilated internal inguinal ring at reoperation and forming part
of the sac. No recurrences were seen in the TEP repair group.
Overall satisfaction
No difference in the overall satisfaction was found between TEP and TAPP in level
1 and 2 studies [1–11].
Quality of life
In the study by Bansal et al. [7], both the TEP and TAPP groups showed significant
improvement in quality of life from the preoperative period to 3 months postoperatively.
The TEP group showed significant improvement in all domains, whereas the TAPP group
showed significant improvement in all domains except those of vitality and social
functions. However, both groups were comparable postoperatively in terms of quality
of life. No previous studies have compared quality of life after TEP versus TAPP repair.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Bracale U, Melillo P, Pignata G, Salvo E, Rovani M, Merola G, Pecchia L (2012) Which
is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A systematic
review of the literature with a network meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26:3355–3366. (1A)
Antoniou S, Antoniou G, Bartsch D, Fendrich V, Koch O, Pointner R, Granderath F (2013)
Transabdominal preperitoneal versus totally extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia:
a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Am J Surg 206:245–252. (1A)
Gong K, Zhang N, Lu Y, Zhu B, Zhang Z, Du D, Zhao X, Jiang H (2011) Comparison of
the open tension-free mesh-plug, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), and totally
extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia
repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 25:234–239. (1B)
Mesci A, Korkmaz B, Dinckan A, Colak T, Balci N, Ogunc G (2012) Comparison of the
open tension-free mesh-plug, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), and totally extraperitoneal
(TEP) laparoscopic techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a prospective
randomized controlled trial. Surg Today 42:157–163. (1B)
Hamza Y, Gabr E, Hammadi H, Khalil R (2010) Four-arm randomized trial comparing laparoscopic
and open hernia repairs. Int J Surg 8: 25–28. (1B)
Zhu Q, Mao Z, Yu B, Jin J, Zheng M, Li J (2009) Effects of Persistent CO2 insufflation
during different laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled
study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:611–614. (1B)
Bansal VK, Misra MC, Babu D, Victor J, Kumar S, Sagar R, Rajeshwari S, Krishna A,
Rewari V (2013) A prospective, randomized comparison of long-term outcomes: chronic
groin pain and quality of life following totally extraperitoneal (TEP) and transabdominal
preperitoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 27:2373–2382.
(1B)
Krishna A, Misra MC, Bansal VK, Kumar S, Rajeshwari S, Chabra A (2012) Laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair: transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal
(TEP) approach: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26:639–649.
(1B)
Belyansky I, Tsirline V, Klima D, Walters A, Lincourt A, Heniford T (2011) Prospective,
comparative study of postoperative quality of life in TEP, TAPP, and modified lichtenstein
repairs. Ann Surg 254:709–715. (2B)
Zanghì A, Di Vita M, Lo Menzo E, Castorina S, Cavallaro AS, Piccolo G, Grosso G, Cappellani
A (2011) Multicentric evaluation by verbal rate scale and EuroQoL-5D of early and
late post-operative pain after TAPP and TEP procedures with mechanical fixation for
bilateral inguinal hernias. Ann Ital Chir 82:437–442. (2B)
Gass M, Banz V, Rosella L, Adamina M, Candinas D, Guller U (2012) TAPP or TEP? Population-based
analysis of prospective data on 4,552 patients undergoing endoscopic inguinal hernia
repair. World J Surg 36:2782–2786. (2C)
Chapter 5: Endoscopic/laparoscopic surgery in complicated hernias: feasibility, risks,
and benefit
George Ferzli, Michel Timoney
Search terms: ‘‘Scrotal hernia’’; ‘‘Hernias with large defects’’, “Recurrent inguinal
hernia”, “Femoral hernia”, “Incarcerated hernia”, “Occult inguinal hernia”, “Strangulated
hernia”, “Synchronous inguinal hernia
Search machines
PubMed
New publications
No new publications found.
TAPP and TEP for scrotal hernia repair
New statements—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 3
TEP inguinal-scrotal hernia repair remains an advantageous approach during the difficult
scrotal hernia that requires “conversion” to an open repair, because the pre-peritoneal
dissection performed laparoscopically allows for reduction of the hernia and optimal
mesh placement once the hernia repair has been converted and is performed from the
anterior approach (new).
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendation below.
Grade C
TEP approach for the large, difficult scrotal hernia may serve as an adjunct to dissection
and definition of the pre-peritoneal space allowing for easier hernia and mesh placement
once the case is “converted” to open repair (new).
Comments
Ferzli et al. [1] reviewed their experience with 1,890 TEP hernia repairs. Ninety-four
large scrotal hernias were identified of which, nine cases (9.5 %) required conversion
to an open procedure due to an incarcerated and indurated omentum. Six of these (6.4 %)
underwent a combined laparoscopic and open repair with good results and no recurrence
at 6 months. They conclude that a combined laparoscopic and open approach can greatly
assist in the visualization and dissection of the preperitoneal space, thereby facilitating
reduction of the hernia and placement of the mesh.
Siow et al. [2] retrospectively reviewed their experience with TAPP in the treatment
of incarcerated scrotal hernias. They were able to successfully treat 20 patients
using either a pure TAPP technique or TAPP combined with a limited open technique.
TAPP for incarcerated and strangulated inguinal hernia
No new statements or recommendations.
TEP for incarcerated and strangulated inguinal hernia
New statement—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 3
Laparoscopic hernia repair for incarcerated inguinal hernia has been successfully
and safely performed in the pediatric population (new).
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendations below.
Grade C
Laparoscopic hernia repair for incarcerated inguinal hernia may be successfully and
safely performed in the pediatric population by surgeons with laparoscopic expertise
(new).
Comments
Nah et al. [3] performed a retrospective study of pediatric patients with incarcerated
inguinal hernias and found a trend toward fewer complications in the group whose repair
was performed laparoscopically rather than open, although this was not statistically
significant. They also found a higher statistically significant incidence of contralateral
hernias that were repaired at the time of repair of the incarcerated hernia.
Esposito et al. [4] reviewed their experience with 601 children who underwent laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair 46 (7.6 %) of whom presented with incarceration. The authors
were able to successfully treat these patients with laparoscopic repair with a recurrence
rate of 4.3 %.
Chan et al. [5] reviewed their experience with laparoscopic approach to the incarcerated
pediatric inguinal hernia repair. They were able to safely and successfully treat
16 patients with incarcerated hernias using laparoscopy. Choi et al. [6] conducted
a retrospective analysis of 945 patients who underwent TEP repair of their inguinal
hernia and 66 had an incarcerated hernia. There was no difference in outcome between
the incarcerated and reducible groups but operative times were longer and seroma formation
was greater in the incarcerated group.
Yang et al. [7] retrospectively reviewed 188 patients who underwent emergency surgical
repair of strangulated groin hernias; 57 received laparoscopic and 131 received open
repairs. They found that more laparotomies were performed in the open group (19 vs.
0), the wound infection rate was significantly higher in the open group (12 vs. 0),
and the mean hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (4.39 vs. 7.34 days).
TAPP and TEP for incarcerated femoral hernia Statements
No new statements or recommendations.
Comments
Ginesta et al. [8] published a case report of successful TEP hernioplasty combined
with laparoscopic assisted intestinal resection for a strangulated Richter femoral
hernia.
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the setting of peritonitis and bowel necrosis
No new statements or recommendations.
TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia
No new statements or recommendations.
TEP for recurrent inguinal hernia
No new statements or recommendations.
Comments
Demetrashvili et al. [9] performed a randomized prospective study comparing open versus
TAPP repair for recurrent inguinal hernia. Twenty eight patients were assigned to
the Lichtenstein repair technique and 24 to TAPP repair. Results were equivalent in
terms of operative time, recurrence and chronic pain. The TAPP patients had significantly
less pain in the postoperative period and, faster recovery.
Shah et al. [10] found no difference in complication rate in their retrospective review
of 172 patients who underwent either open versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
for recurrent inguinal hernia. They did find a significantly lower incidence of re-recurrence
in the laparoscopic group. Sevonius et al. [11] reviewed the Swedish hernia registry
and found that the risk of reoperation for re-recurrence in 19,582 hernia repairs
for recurrent hernia is significantly reduced if the laparoscopic or open pre-peritoneal
repair were used for the repair of the recurrence (p < 0.001). Bignell et al. [12]
prospectively studied 120 patients who underwent TAPP inguinal hernia repair versus
open hernia repair. They demonstrated a slightly lower severity of chronic groin pain
after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair for bilateral and recurrent inguinal hernias
versus open repair but with no significant improvement in quality of life. Yildiz
et al. [13] reviewed 26 male pediatric patients who underwent laparoscopic repair
of recurrent hernia. Thirteen were treated with laparoscopic surgery (with Schier’s
intracorporeal “N” suture closure) and 13 with open surgery (with high ligation technique).
They found a statistically shorter length of the operation time in laparoscopic repair
group.
TAPP / TEP inguinal hernia repair after failed TAPP / TEP
No new statements or recommendations.
Comments
van den Heuvel and Dwars [14] reviewed 2,594 TAPP inguinal hernia repairs (TAPP).
Of these, 53 repairs were attempted for recurrent hernias after a previous posterior
repair in 51 patients. Two repairs had to be converted to an open technique. One case
resulted in ligation of the vas deferens. Four patients developed port site hernias.
There were no serious postoperative events. At follow-up (mean of 70 months) no recurrences
were found.
Uchida et al. [15] retrospectively reviewed 28 patients who underwent TEP repair of
a contralateral inguinal hernia out of 215 who had undergone previous TEP inguinal
hernia repair. Complications in this group were few. Three patients required conversion
to an anterior approach and, in four, the inferior epigastric artery and vein were
divided.
TAPP and TEP repair in patient after previous transabdominal radical prostatectomy
No new statements or recommendations
Pitfalls of TAPP and TEP repair for recurrent inguinal hernia
No new statements or recommendations.
TAPP and TEP repair and the occult synchronous hernias
New statements—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 4
Women are at increased risk of having an occult synchronous femoral hernia (New).
New recommendation—identical to previous except recommendation below.
Grade C
When performing inguinal hernia repair in women, extra effort should be undertaken
to reveal and treat occult synchronous femoral hernia (New).
Comments
Putnis et al. [16] performed a retrospective review of 362 patients who underwent
484 TEP inguinal hernia repairs. They found a total of 18 cases of synchronous femoral
hernias with a statistically higher incidence of femoral hernia in females (37 %)
compared to males (3 %) (p < 0.001). They suggest that all women presenting with an
inguinal hernia also have a formal assessment of the femoral canal.
Henrikson et al. [17] looked at 461 patients undergoing laparoscopic hernia repair
for the incidence of occult synchronous femoral hernia. They found a significantly
higher incidence of unsuspected femoral hernia in patients undergoing repair for recurrence
[23/250, 9.2 %) compared to the group undergoing primary repair (8/211, 3.8 %), p = 0.02.
Furthermore, 38.1 % of women operated on for a recurrent inguinal hernia, presented
with an unsuspected femoral hernia at surgery as opposed to 6.6 % of the men, p = 0.003.
Dulucq et al. [18] prospectively performed 337 laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs
in 263 patients. These patients were all assessed for occult concomitant hernia. 44
unexpected hernias were encountered and repaired with minimal complication: 6 Spiegelian
hernias, 19 obturator hernias and 19 femoral hernias. Nah et al. [3] performed a retrospective
study of pediatric patients with incarcerated inguinal hernias and found a trend toward
fewer complication in the group whose repair was performed laparoscopically rather
than open, although this was not statistically significant. They also found a higher
statistically incidence of contralateral hernias which were repaired at the time of
repair of the incarcerated hernia.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Ferzli GS, Rim S, Edwards ED (2013) Combined laparoscopic and open extraperitoneal
approach to scrotal hernias. Hernia 17(2):223–228. (3)
Siow SL, Mahendran HA, Hardin M, Chea CH, NikAzim NA (2013) Laparoscopic transabdominal
approach and its modified technique for incarcerated scrotal hernias. Asian J Surg
36(2):64–68. (3)
Nah SA, Giacomello L, Eaton S, de Coppi P, Curry JI, Drake DP, Kiely EM, Pierro A
(2011) Surgical repair of incarcerated inguinal hernia in children: laparoscopic or
open? Eur J Pediatr Surg 21(1):8–11. (3)
Esposito C, Turial S, Alicchio F, Enders J, Castagnetti M, Krause K, Settimi A, Schier
F (2013) Laparoscopic repair of incarcerated inguinal hernia. A safe and effective
procedure to adopt in children. Hernia 17(2):235–23. (3)
Chan KW, Lee KH, Tam YH, Sihoe JD, Cheung ST, Mou JW (2011) Laparoscopic inguinal
hernia repair by the hook method in emergency setting in children presenting with
incarcerated inguinal hernia. J Pediatr Surg 46 (10):1970–1973. (3)
Choi YY, Kim Z, Hur KY (2011) Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair for incarcerated
inguinal hernia. J Korean Surg Soc 80(6):426–430. (3)
Yang GP, Chan CT, Lai EC, Chan OC, Tang CN, Li MK (2012) Laparoscopic versus open
repair for strangulated groin hernias: 188 cases over 4 years. Asian J Endosc Surg
5(3):131–137. (3)
Ginestà C, Saavedra-Perez D, Valentini M, Vidal O, Benarroch G, García-Valdecasas
JC (2013) Total extraperitoneal (TEP) hernioplasty with intestinal resection assisted
by laparoscopy for a strangulated richter femoral hernia surgical laparoscopy. Endosc
Percutan Tech 23(3): 334–336. (5)
Demetrashvili Z, Qerqadze V, Kamkamidze G, Topchishvili G, Lagvilava L, Chartholani
T, Archvadze V (2011) Comparison of lichtenstein and laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal
repair of recurrent inguinal hernias. Int Surg 96(3):233–238. (1B)
Shah NR, Mikami DJ, Cook C, Manilchuk A, Hodges C, Memark VR, Volckmann ET, Hall CR,
Steinberg S, Needleman B, Hazey JW, Melvin WS, Narula VK (2011) A comparison of outcomes
between open and laparoscopic surgical repair of recurrent inguinal hernias. Surg
Endosc 25(7):2330–2337. (3)
Sevonius D, Gunnarsson U, Nordin P, Nilsson E, Sandblom G (2011) Recurrent groin hernia
surgery. BJS 98(10):1489–1494. (2C)
Bignell M, Partridge G, Mahon D, Rhodes M (2012). Prospective randomized trial of
laparoscopic (transabdominal preperitoneal-TAPP) versus open (mesh) repair for bilateral
and recurrent inguinal hernia: incidence of chronic groin pain and impact on quality
of life: results of 10 year follow-up. Hernia 16(6): 635–640. (2B)
Yildiz A, Çelebi S, Akin M, Karadağ ÇA, Sever N, Erginel B, Dokucu AI (2012) Laparoscopic
herniorraphy: a better approach for recurrent hernia in boys? Pediatr Surg Int 28(5):449–453.
(3)
van den Heuvel B, Dwars BJ (2013) Repeated laparoscopic treatment of recurrent inguinal
hernias after previous posterior repair. Surg Endosc 27(3):795–800. (3)
Uchida H, Matsumoto T, Endo Y, Kusumoto T, Muto Y, Kitano S (2011) Repeat laparoscopic
totally extraperitoneal hernia repair after primary laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal
hernia repair for inguinal hernia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21(3):233–235. (3)
Putnis S, Wong A, Berney C (2011) Synchronous femoral hernias diagnosed during endoscopic
inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 25: 3752–3754. (3)
Henriksen NA, Thorup J, Jorgensen LN (2012) Unsuspected femoral hernia in patients
with a preoperative diagnosis of recurrent inguinal hernia. Hernia 16(4):381–385.
(2B)
Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Mahajna A (2011) Occult hernias detected by laparoscopic
totally extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective study. Hernia 15(4):399–402.
(2B)
Chapter 6: Mesh size and recurrence
Thue Bisgaard, Jacob Rosenberg
Search terms: “Hernia, Inguinal [MESH] (“size” or “recurrence”), “clinical trial”,
randomized controlled—“meta-analysis”.
Search machines
PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews specialized register and reference
lists of the included studies were searched for studies for potential inclusion.
New publications
A total of 81 new studies were identified (compared with former literature search
covering 1966 to January 2009) and none of them were relevant.
No new statements or recommendations.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
No references.
Chapter 7: Heavy or light weight mesh in TAPP and TEP—functional outcome and quality
of life
Dirk Weyhe, F. Koeckerling, Uwe Klinge
Search terms: “TAPP” AND “mesh”, TEP AND “mesh”, “Biocompatibility” AND “mesh”, “groin
pain” AND “mesh”, “inguinal hernia” AND “mesh”, “Quality of life” AND “mesh”, “azoospermia”
AND “mesh”, “sperm-motility” AND “mesh”
Search machines
Pubmed, Medline, and Cochrane Library.
New publications
TAPP In total, n = 26 hits were found from February 2009–October 2013. Excluding n = 2
(review a.o.), n = 23 publications were classified according to the evidence criteria.
The result was n = 3/23 articles fulfilled the criteria of Level IB (13 %) based on
Oxford hierarchy of evidence [1–3]. However, these papers are disregarded by reason
that they are not comparing mesh types in TAPP.
TEP The TEP search resulted in n = 34 hits. Excluding n = 3 articles (listed in TAPP
search), n = 1 (3 %) article correlate to level 1B [4]. In a one-year follow up midterm
results are described in this RCT.
Overall n = 3 meta-analysis are available [5–7]. Since the publication of the IEHS
Guidelines in 2011, n = 3 prospectively randomized trials and n = 1 registry study
have been published concerning azoospermia [8–11].
New statements—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 1 A
The statistical significance that lighter meshes with larger pores results in improvement
of quality of life is not consistent in recently published meta-analyses. Subset analysis
revealed no higher risk of recurrence after using lightweight meshes in laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair (New).
Level 2B
The middle- and long-term results of prospective studies in men do not support the
hypothesis that bilateral inguinal hernia repair with alloplastic mesh prosthesis
causes male infertility or decreasing the sperm motility (New).
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendation below.
Grade B
A monofilament implant with a pore size of at least 1.0–1.5 mm (usually meaning low-weight)
consisting of a minimum tensile strength in all directions (including subsequent tearing
force) of 16 N/cm appeared to be most advantageous; however, this assumption mainly
summarizes personal and published clinical and experimental experiences (stronger
evidence).
The application of large pore polypropylene meshes in endoscopic hernia repair is
harmless concerning azoospermia and should therefore further used (New).
Comments
A clear recommendation cannot be made based on currently published RCT’s even if level
1A evidence is available. Two of three meta-analyses found no significant differences
in terms of early postoperative pain, recurrence rate or return to work [5, 7]. The
reduced incidence of chronic groin pain is only in one meta-analysis [6] significantly
lower after LM implantation. Li et al. evaluated a publication bias by using Egger’s
test but mixed different techniques in hernia repair. Regardless of the addition of
non-randomized but controlled trails, there is no difference in the development of
chronic groin pain within 6 months between both mesh types. Interestingly, out of
a total of 16 RCT’s which are used for the structured review by Currie et al. [5],
Li et al. [7] and Sajid et al. [6], only n = 6 were cited in the three published meta-analysis
(Fig. 1). In addition only Sajid [6] includes data from Champault [12] and independently
from the discussion if Champault study is prospective randomized or not, it influenced
substantial this meta-analysis. Therefore the value is arguable. However, based on
a slight trend to improved quality of life after using large pore and so called lightweight
meshes, the authors upgrades the existing recommendation from Grade D to Grade B even
if the present meta-analysis are not statistical consistent.
Fig. 1
Accordance of included RCT’s in published meta-analysis from Sajid, Li and Currie
[4, 14–30]
The lack of consistency of the results of published RCT”s suggests that, on one hand,
the mesh-choice only slightly influence the clinical outcome and, on the other hand,
the classification in heavy and light meshes does not allow sufficient differentiation.
On this account, a modified implant classification with primary regard to the local
scarring formation than the implants weight should be done in future to allow better
comparability of RCT’s [13]. Concerning azoospermia as an important parameter regarding
quality of life, a Belgian prospective study showed significant early postoperative
sperm-motility disorders in the light-mesh group and could not be noticed in long-term
examinations [9, 10]. A Swedish registry study compared patients receiving meshes
with such without mesh implantation [11]. This study could exclude, independently
of the mesh type, a higher risk of infertility.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Krishna A, Misra MC, Bansal VK, Kumar S, Rajeshwari S, Chabra A (2012) Laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair: transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal
(TEP) approach: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26(3):639–649.
(1B)
Gong K, Zhang N, Lu Y, Zhu B, Zhang Z, Du D, Zhao X, Jiang H (2011) Comparison of
the open tension-free mesh-plug, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), and totally
extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia
repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 25(1):234–239. (1B)
Hamza Y, Gabr E, Hammadi H, Khalil R (2010) Four-arm randomized trial comparing laparoscopic
and open hernia repairs. Int J Surg 8(1):25–28. (1B)
Chui LB, Ng WT, Sze YS, Yuen KS, Wong YT, Kong CK (2010) Prospective, randomized,
controlled trial comparing lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in chronic pain incidence
after TEP repair of bilateral inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc 24(11):2735–2738. (1B)
Currie A, Andrew H, Tonsi A, Hurley PR, Taribagil S (2012) Lightweight versus heavyweight
mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26(8):2126–2133.
(1A)
Sajid MS, Kalra L, Parampalli U, Sains PS, Baig MK (2013) A systematic review and
meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of lightweight mesh against heavyweight
mesh in influencing the incidence of chronic groin pain following laparoscopic inguinal
hernia repair. Am J Surg 205(6):726–736. (1A)
Li J, Ji Z, Cheng T (2012) Lightweight versus heavyweight in inguinal hernia repair:
a meta-analysis. Hernia 16(5):529–39. (1B)
Skawran S, Weyhe D, Schmitz B, Belyaev O, Bauer KH (2011) Bilateral endoscopic total
extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair does not induce obstructive azoospermia:
data of a retrospective and prospective trial. World J Surg 35(7):1643–1648. (2C)
Peeters E, Spiessens C, Oyen R, De Wever L, Vanderschueren D, Penninckx F, Miserez
M (2014) Sperm motility after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with lightweight
meshes: 3-year follow-up of a randomised clinical trial. Hernia 18(3):361–367. (2B)
Peeters E, Spiessens C, Oyen R, De Wever L, Vanderschueren D, Penninckx F, Miserez
M (2010) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in men with lightweight meshes may significantly
impair sperm motility: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 252(2):240–246. (2B)
Hallén M, Sandblom G, Nordin P, Gunnarsson U, Kvist U, Westerdahl J, (2011) Male infertility
after mesh hernia repair: a prospective study. Surgery 149(2):179–184. (2C)
Champault G, Bernard C, Rizk N, Polliand C (2007) Inguinal hernia repair: the choice
of prosthesis outweighs that of technique. Hernia 11:125–124. (3)
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B (2012) Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia
repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes. Hernia 16(3):251–258. (2C)
Agarwal BB, Agarwal KA, Mahajan KC (2009) Prospective double-blind randomized controlled
study comparing heavy- and lightweight polypropylene mesh in totally extraperitoneal
repair or inguinal hernia: early results. Surg Endosc 23:242–247. (2B)
Chowbey PK, Barg N, Sharma A, Khullar R, Soni V, Baijal M, Mittal T (2010) Prospective
randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh and heavyweight polypropylene
mesh in endoscopic totally extraperitoneal groin hernia repair. Surg Endosc 24:3073–3079.
(2B)
Chui LB, Ng WT, Sze YS, Yuen KS, Wong YT, Kong CK (2010) Prospective, randomized,
controlled trial comparing lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in chronic pain incidence
after TEP repair of bilateral inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc 24(11):2735–2738. (1B)
Peeters E, Spiessens C, Oyen R, De Wever L, Vanderschueren D, Penninckx F, Miserez
M (2010) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in men with lightweight meshes may significantly
impair sperm motility: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 252:240–246. (2B)
Bringman S, Heikkinen TJ, Wollert S, Österberg J, Smedberg S, Granlund H, Ramel S,
Felländer G, Anderberg B (2004) Early results of a single-blinded, randomized, controlled,
Internet-based multicenter trial comparing Prolene and Vypro II mesh in Lichtenstein
hernioplasty. Hemia 8:127–134. (2B)
Bringman S, Wollert S, Österberg J, Smedberg-S, Granlund H, Fellinder G, Heikkinen
T (2005) One year results of a randomized controlled multi-centre study comparing
Prolene and Vypro Il-mesh in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia 9:223–227. (2B)
Heikkinen T, Wollert S, Österberg J, Smedberg S, Bringman S (2006) Early results of
a randomized trial comparing Prolene and Vypro Il-mesh in endoscopic extraperitoneal
inguinal hernia repair (TEP) of recurrent unilateral hernias. Hernia 10:34–40. (2B)
Koch A, Bringman S, Myrelid P, Smeds S, Kald A (2008) Randomized clinical trial of
groin hernia repair with titanium coated lightweight mesh compared with standard polypropylene
mesh. Br J Surg 95(10):1226–1231. (2B)
Langenbach MR, Schmidt J, Zirngibl H (2006) Comparison of biomaterials: three meshes
and TAPP for inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc 20:1511–1517. (2B)
Langenbach MR, Schmidt J, Ubrig B, Zirngibl H (2008) Sixty-month follow-up after endoscopic
inguinal hernia repair with three types of mesh: a prospective randomized trial. Surg
Endosc 22:1790–1797. (2B)
Nikkolo C, Lepner U, Mumrste M, Vaasna T, Seepter H, Tikk T (2010) Randomized clinical
trial comparing lightweight mesh with heavyweight mesh for inguinal hernioplasty.
Hernia 14:253–258. (2B)
O’Dwyer PJ, Kingsnorth AN, Molloy RG, Smal1 PK, Lammers B, Horeyseck G (2005) Randomized
clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain
after inguinal hernia repair. Br JSurg 92(2):166–170. (2B)
Paajanen H (2007) A single-surgeon randomized trial comparing three composite meshes
on chronic pain after Lichtenstein hernia repair in local anesthesia. Hernia 11(4):335–339.
(2B)
Post S, Weiss B, Willer M, Neufang T, Lorenz D (2004) Randomized clinical trial of
lightweight composite mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 91(1):44–48.
(2B)
Smietanski M, for the Polish Hernia Study Group (2008) Randomized clinical trial comparing
a polypropylene with a poliglecaprone and polypropylene composite mesh for inguinal
hernioplasty. Br J Surg 95:1462–1468. (2B)
Bittner R, Leibl BJ, Kraft B, Schwarz J (2011) One-year results of a prospective,
randomized clinical trial comparing four meshes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
(TAPP). Hernia 15:503–510. (2B)
Bittner R, Schmedt CG, Leibl BJ, Schwarz J (2011) Early postoperative and one year
results of a randomized controlled trial comparing the impact of extralight titanized
polypropylene mesh and traditional heavyweight polypropylene mesh on pain and seroma
production in laparoscopic hernia repair (TAPP). World J Surg 35(8):1791–1797. (2B)
Chapter 8: Slitting or not slitting of mesh—does it influence outcome?
Thue Bisgaard, Jacob Rosenberg
Search terms: Hernia, Inguinal [MESH] (“cutting” or “slit”), “clinical trial”, “randomized
controlled”—“meta-analysis”.
Search machines
PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews specialized register and reference
lists of the included studies were searched for studies for potential inclusion.
Number of publications
A total of 176 new studies were identified (compared with former literature search
covering 1966 to January 2009) and two of them were relevant.
New statements—identical to previous except statement below.
Level 1
Cutting a slit in the mesh to allow the structures of the funicel to pass does not
compromise testicular perfusion and testicular volume (New).
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendations below.
Grade B
Based on available evidence we recommend not to cut a slit in the mesh although cutting
does not compromise testis perfusion (New).
Comments
We identified one new randomized trial [1]. In this trial [1] 40 patients undergoing
TEP were randomized to a slit or no slit. Doppler ultrasound was performed preoperatively,
day 5 and after 6 months. There were no significant differences in testicular perfusion
and volume.
Finally, one case–control study [2] with a retrospective design compared 78 patients
undergoing TEP with a slit mesh with 300 patients undergoing TEP with a no-slit mesh.
Number of patients included was not based on a power analysis. Patients had a 12 × 15 cm
polypropylene mesh. Clinical recurrences were seen in 0.6 % in the slit group and
in 6 % in the no-slit group (p < 0.01). Follow-up after 3 years was either with telephone
interview or clinical examination and the study quality was questionable since significant
bias may have been involved in patient selection for slit versus no-slit.
There is no convincing evidence to support use of a slit or to use no-slit in the
mesh for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. One study found some of the recurrences
to be associated with insufficient closure of the mesh slit. This could argue against
slitting the mesh. We routinely do not cut a slit in the mesh as it does not bring
any technical advantage for the surgeon or better clinical results for the patient.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Celik AS, Memmi N, Celebi F, Guzey D, Celik A, Kaplan R, Oncu M (2009) Impact of slit
and nonslit mesh technique on testicular perfusion and volume in the early and late
postoperative period of the totally extraperitoneal preperitoneal technique in patients
with inguinal hernia. Am J Surg 198:287–291. (1B)
Domniz N, Perry ZH, Lantsberg L, Avinoach E, Mizrahi S, Kirshtein B (2011) Slit versus
non-slit mesh placement in total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg
35:2382–2386. (3)
Chapter 9: Mesh fixation modalities: is there an association with acute or chronic
pain?
René H. Fortelny, Wolfgang Reinpold, Agneta Montgomery
Search terms: ‘‘Surgical Mesh (MeSH)’’ AND ‘‘Surgical fixation device’’ (MeSH) AND
‘‘Inguinal Hernia’’ (MeSH); ‘‘fixation AND mesh AND TEP’’; ‘‘fixation AND mesh AND
TAPP’’; ‘‘TAPP AND pain’’; ‘‘TEP AND pain’’; ‘‘groin hernia AND pain’’; ‘‘inguinal
hernia AND pain’’; “Randomized control trial” AND “fixation AND hernia”.
Search machines
PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews specialized register and reference
lists of the included studies were search for studies for potential inclusion.
New publications
A total of 10 new studies were identified as Level 1. Four studies on non-fixation
versus mechanical fixation were identified. Three were meta-analysis [1–3] and the
last one by Sajid et al. [3] reported on eight RCTs that was used for the analyses.
One RCT was published after this meta-analysis and was included in this analysis [4].
Five studies on glue fixation versus mechanical fixation were identified. Two were
meta-analysis [5, 6] and the last one by Sajid [6] et al. reported on 5 RCTs and were
used in this analyses. Another five new RCTs [8–11] have been published since and
have been included in this analysis.
New statements—identical to previous except recommendations below.
Level 1A
Fixation and non-fixation of the mesh in TEP are associated with equally risk of postoperative
pain or recurrence (New).
Level 1B
Fibrin glue fixation is associated with less chronic pain than stapling.
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendations below.
Grade A
If TEP technique is used, non-fixation has to be considered in all types of inguinal
hernias except large direct defects (MIII, EHS classification) (stronger recommendation).
Grade B
In case of TAPP repair non-fixation should be considered in types LI, II, and MI,
II hernias (EHS classification).
For fixation, fibrin glue should be considered to minimize the risk of acute postoperative
pain (modified recommendations).
Comments
Sajid et al. reported in the meta-analysis on no difference between non-fixation versus
mechanical fixation for both early (overall effect Z = 0.75 p = 0.45) and chronic
pain (Z = 0.43 p = 0.67) [3]. The RCT of Garg et al. [4], published after this meta-analysis,
confirmed the same results. This evidence is the background for the new statement
Level 1A.
Sajid et al. [3] reported in their second meta-analysis no difference between glue
fixation and mechanical fixation for early pain (Z = 1.27, p = 0.20). There was a
significant difference for chronic pain (Z = 3.27, p = 0.001) [6]. Three studies reported
on early pain after the meta-analysis [8–10]. They all concluded that early pain was
significantly less in the glue group. Four studies reported on chronic pain after
the meta-analysis demonstrating no difference between glue and mechanical fixation
[8–10]. This led to the decision to exclude the former recommendation to consider
fibrin glue to minimize the risk of chronic pain.
Concerning the use of self-fixating meshes up to now only one randomized controlled
trial comparing fixation by fibrin glue versus micro-hooks is published 2012 without
any significant difference concerning postoperative pain in a follow up of 3 months
[11]. For information Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialized register reported
an on-going meta-analysis of mesh fixation techniques for laparoscopic inguinal hernia
repair [12].
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Tam KW, Liang HH, Chai CY (2010) Outcomes of staple fixation of mesh versus nonfixation
in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal repair: a meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. World J Surg 34(12):3065–3074. (1A)
Teng YJ, Pan SM, Liu YL, Yang KH, Zhang YC, Tian JH, Han JX (2011) A meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials of fixation versus nonfixation of mesh in laparoscopic
total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 25(9):2849–2858. (1A)
Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L, Hutson K, Sains P, Baig MK (2012) A meta-analysis examining
the use of tacker fixation versus no-fixation of mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia
repair. Int J Surg 10(5):224–231. (1A)
Garg P, Nair S, Shereef M, Thakur JD, Nain N, Menon GR, Ismail M (2011) Mesh fixation
compared to nonfixation in total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a randomized
controlled trial in a rural center in India. Surg Endosc 25(10):3300–3306. (1B)
Kaul A, Hutfless S, Le H, Hamed SA, Tymitz K, Nguyen H, Marohn MR (2012) Staple versus
fibrin glue fixation in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia:
a systematic review and meta-analysis Surg Endosc 26:1269–1278. (1A)
Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L, McFall M, Baig MK, Sains P (2013) A meta-analysis examining
the use of tacker mesh fixation versus glue mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal
hernia repair. Am J Surg 206(1):103–111. (1A)
Fortelny RH, Petter-Puchner AH, May C, Jaksch W, Benesch T, Khakpour Z, Redl H, Glaser
KS (2012) The impact of atraumatic fibrin sealant vs. staple mesh fixation in TAPP
hernia repair on chronic pain and quality of life: results of a randomized controlled
study. Surg Endosc 26(1):249–254. (1B)
Brügger L, Bloesch M, Ipaktchi R, Kurmann A, Candinas D, Beldi G (2012) Objective
hypoesthesia and pain after transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty: a prospective,
randomized study comparing tissue adhesive versus spiral tacks. Surg Endosc 26(4):1079–1085.
(1B)
Subwongcharoen S, Ruksakul K (2013) A randomized controlled trial of staple fixation
versus N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J
Med Assoc Thai. 96 Suppl 3:8–13. (2B)
Tolver MA, Rosenberg J, Juul P, Bisgaard T (2013) Randomized clinical trial of fibrin
glue versus tacked fixation in laparoscopic groin hernia repair. Surg Endosc 27(8):2727–2733.
(1B)
Cambal M, Zonca P, Hrbaty B (2012) Comparison of self-gripping mesh with mesh fixation
with fibrin-glue in laparoscopic hernia repair (TAPP). Bratisl Lek Listy 113(2):103–107.
(1B)
Dickinson K, McCormack K, Scott N, Fawole A, White C, Grant AM. Mesh fixation techniques
for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011,
Issue 1. Art. No.: CD008954. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008954. (1A)
Chapter 10: Risk factors and prevention of acute and chronic pain in TAPP and TEP
Wolfgang Reinpold
Search terms: “TEP” and “pain”; “TAPP” and “pain”; “groin hernia” and “pain”; “inguinal
hernia” and “pain”; “randomized controlled trial” and “pain” and “hernia”.
Search machines
Pubmed, Medline, Embase, British Journal of Surgery database, Science Citation Index,
and the Cochrane database.
New publications
A total of 13 new studies were identified as Level 1. There is one new systematic
review comparing open versus TEP and TAPP for acute and chronic pain [1] and one systematic
review comparing TEP and TAPP for acute pain [2].
New statements—identical to previous except statements below.
Level 1A
There is no difference of chronic pain after TEP and TAPP (stronger evidence).
Fixation and non fixation of the mesh in TEP are associated with equally risk of postoperative
pain (see chapter “Fixation”) (new).
Level 1B
Fibrin glue fixation is associated with less chronic pain than stapling (see chapter
“Fixation”) (new).
Level 2A
Age below median (40–50 years) is a risk factor for acute pain (stronger evidence).
Age below median (40–50 years) is a risk factor for chronic pain (stronger evidence).
Severe acute postoperative pain is a risk factor for chronic pain (stronger evidence).
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendations below.
Grade A
If TEP technique is used non fixation has to be considered in all types of inguinal
hernias except large defects (L III, MIII; EHS classification; see chapter “Fixation”)
(new).
Grade B
In case of TAPP repair non fixation should be considered in types LI, LII, MI, MII
hernias (EHS classification, see Chapter “Fixation”) (new).
Comments
Four new RCT compared TEP and TAPP for pain [3–6] of which three analyzed only chronic
pain [3, 5, 6]. While there was no difference for chronic pain, two RCT [3, 6] reported
less acute pain after TEP. There were identified 9 new RCT [4, 5, 7–13] including
3,780 patients comparing open repair with TEP/TAPP repair. Two of these trials analyzed
only chronic pain. All seven studies reported less acute pain after TAPP/TEP. Eight
trials found significant less chronic pain after TAPP/TEP. One systematic review [2]
identified young age as risk factor for acute pain and one RCT reported more chronic
pain in younger patients. One systematic review [2] and one RCT [7] identified severe
acute postoperative pain as risk factor for chronic pain.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Bracale U, Melillo P, Pignata G, Di Salvo E, Rovani M, Merola G, Pecchia L (2012)
Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A
systematic review of the literature with a network meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26:3355–3366.
(1A)
Tolver MA, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T (2012) Early pain after laparoscopic inguinal hernia
repair. A qualitative systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 56(5):549–557. (1A)
Bansal VK, Misra MC, Babu D, Victor J, Kumar S, Sagar R, Rajeshwari S, Krishna A,
Rewari V (2013) A prospective, randomized comparison of long-term outcomes: chronic
groin pain and quality of life following totally extraperitoneal (TEP) and transabdominal
preperitoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 27(7):2373–2382.
(1B)
Hamza Y, Gabr E, Hammadi H, Khalil R (2010) Four-arm randomized trial comparing laparoscopic
and open hernia repairs. Int J Surg 8:25–28. (1B)
Gong K, Zhang N, Lu Y, Zhu B, Zhang Z, Du D, Zhao X, Jiang H (2011) Comparison of
the open tension-free mesh-plug, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), and totally
extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia
repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 25:234–239. (1B)
Krishna A, Misra MC, Bansal VK, Kumar S, Rajeshwari S, Chabra A (2012) Laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair: transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal
(TEP) approach: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26:639–649.
(1B)
Singh AN, Bansal VK, Misra MC, Kumar S, Rajeshwari S, Kumar A, Sagar R, Kumar A (2012)
Testicular functions, chronic groin pain, and quality of life after laparoscopic and
open mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg
Endosc 26(5):1304–1317. (1B)
Dahlstrand U, Sandblom G, Ljungdahl M, Wollert S, Gunnarsson U (2013) TEP under general
anesthesia is superior to Lichtenstein under local anesthesia in terms of pain 6 weeks
after surgery: results from a randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 27:3632–3638.
(1B)
Aigner F, Augustin F, Kaufmann C, Schlager A, Ulmer H, Pratschke J, Schmid T (2014)
Prospective, randomized-controlled trial comparing postoperative pain after plug and
patch open repair with totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 18(2):237–242.
(1B)
Bektaş H, Bilsel Y, Ersöz F, Sarı S, Mutlu T, Arıkan S, Kaygusuz A (2011) Comparison
of totally extraperitoneal technique and darn plication of primary inguinal hernia.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21:583–588. (1B)
Eker HH, Langeveld HR, Klitsie PJ, van’t Riet M, Stassen LP, Weidema WF, Steyerberg
EW, Lange JF, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J (2012) Randomized clinical trial of total extraperitoneal
inguinal hernioplasty vs Lichtenstein repair: a long-term follow-up study. Arch Surg
147:256–260. (1B)
Langeveld HR, van’t Riet M, Weidema WF, Stassen LP, Steyerberg EW, Lange J, Bonjer
HJ, Jeekel J (2010) Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein
(the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 251:819–824. (1B)
Eklund A, Montgomery A, Bergkvist L, Rudberg C; Swedish Multicentre Trial of Inguinal
Hernia Repair by Laparoscopy (SMIL) study group (2010) Chronic pain 5 years after
randomized comparison of laparoscopic and Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Br
J Surg 97:600–608. (1B)
Chapter 11: Urogenital complications associated with TAPP and TEP
Robert J. Fitzgibbons
Search terms: Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy, urinary complications, testicular
complications, spermatic cord complications, infertility, sexual dysfunction.
Search machines
Pubmed, Medline.
Bladder perforation
No new statements or recommendations.
Mesh erosion into the bladder
No new statements or recommendations.
Comments
Mesh erosion into the bladder after LIH is rare, probably occurring in well less than
1 % of cases. The literature dealing with this complication is made up almost exclusively
of case reports and therefore the complication is under reported so that the exact
incidence is not known [1].
Urinary retention
No new statements or recommendations.
Comment
One reference is confirming previous statement [2].
Urinary infection
No new statements or recommendations
Miscellaneous cord and testicular problems
No new statements or recommendations.
Ischemic orchitis /testicular atrophy
No new statements or recommendations.
Sexual Dysfunction
No new statements or recommendations.
Comments
Post herniorrhaphy inguinal, genital or ejaculatory pain occurs in a small percentage
of men after groin hernia repair. In a Danish study comprised of men undergoing a
laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair who were registered in the Danish Hernia Database,
dysejaculation occurred in 3.1 % [3]. Some pain in the groin or genitals was reported
during sexual activity in 10.9 % and in 2.4 % the impaired sexual activity was moderate
or severe. The incidence is probably underestimated because of the reluctance of patients
to discuss their sexual function. The cause is not completely understood. There is
no consistently effective therapy but alpha receptor blockers to decrease contractility
of the Vas and neurolytic agents such as Pregabalin have been tried. Erectile dysfunction
is another complication which men occasionally report after inguinal herniorrhaphy
but its direct relationship makes little anatomical sense and the incidence is unknown
Infertility
New statement
Level 2B
Inguinal hernia repair with mesh is not associated with an increased risk of, or clinically
important risk for, male infertility. (new).
New recommendation
Grade B
Groin hernia repair using mesh techniques may continue to be performed without major
concern about the risk for male infertility. (new).
Comments
Although animal studies have suggested a strong correlation between mesh inguinal
hernia repairs and structural damage to elements of the spermatic cord and testicle
[4], this has not translated into a clinically significant infertility rate after
open or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [4–6]. A concern that the light weight
meshes might have a greater adverse effect on sperm motility, seen 1 year after total
extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP) in one study [7], could not be confirmed
at 3 years follow up [8].
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Hamouda A, Kennedy J, Grant N, Nigam A, Karanjia N (2010) Mesh erosion into the urinary
bladder following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair; is this the tip of the iceberg?
Hernia 14(3): 317–319. (4)
Sivasankaran MV, Pham T, Divino CM.(2014) Incidence and risk factors for urinary retention
following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 207(2):288–292. (4)
Bischoff JM, Linderoth G, Aasvang EK, Werner MU, Kehlet H (2012) Dysejaculation after
laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Surg Endosc
26(4):979–983. (2C)
Tekatli H, Schouten N, van Dalen T, Burgmans I, Smakman N (2012) Mechanism, assessment,
and incidence of male infertility after inguinal hernia surgery: a review of the preclinical
and clinical literature. Am J Surg 204(4):503–509. (2A)
Skawran S, Weyhe D, Schmitz B, Belyaev O, Bauer KH (2011) Bilateral endoscopic total
extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair does not induce obstructive azoospermia:
Data of a retrospective and prospective trial. World J Surg 35:1643–1648. (2B)
Hallen M, Westerdahl J, Nordin P, Gunnarsson U, Sandblom G (2012) Mesh hernia repair
and male infertility: a retrospective register study. (2C)
Peeters E, Spiessens C, Oyen R, De Wever L, Vanderschueren D, Penninckx F, Miserez
M (2010) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in men with lightweight meshes may significantly
impair sperm motility. Ann Surg 252:240–246. (1B)
Peeters E, Spiessens C, Oyen R, De Wever L, Vanderschueren D, Penninckx F, Miserez
M (2014) Sperm motility after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with lightweight
meshes: 3-year follow-up of a randomised clinical trial. Hernia 18(3):361–367. (1B)
Chapter 12: Intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) for inguinal hernia repair—still a therapeutic
option?
Kevin L. Grimes, Kirpal Singh, Maurice E. Arregui
Search terms: “IPOM”; “intraperitoneal onlay mesh”; “inguinal hernia” AND “intraperitoneal”
AND “onlay” AND “mesh”.
Search machines
PubMed; Medline.
New publications
PubMed search yielded 61 and Medline search yielded 43 publications, which were screened
for relevance. There was no level 1 or level 2 publications during the search period.
No new statements or recommendations
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
No new references.
Chapter 13: Role for open preperitoneal mesh placement in the era of endo/laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair
Kevin L. Grimes, Kirpal Singh, Maurice E. Arregui
Search terms: “open preperitoneal hernia repair”; “laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair”;
“TAPP” AND “preperitoneal” AND “hernia repair”; “TEP” AND “preperitoneal” AND “hernia
repair”; “preperitoneal” AND “hernia” AND “repair”.
Search machines
PubMed; Medline.
New publications
Pubmed search yielded 117 and Medline search yielded 145 publications, which were
screened for relevance. Three studies during the search period were Level 1 or 2.
New statements—identical to previous except statements below.
Level 1B
Minimally invasive open approaches (i.e., Kugel) may offer a cost advantage over laparoscopic
approaches. (new).
No new recommendations
Comments
Recent literature does not support a change to previous recommendations. Bender, et
al. [1] randomized 40 patients to either Kugel or TEP repair of unilateral hernias.
There were no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, return to
activity, or serum inflammatory markers. Cost was US$546 lower with Kugel. Hamza,
et al. [2] randomized 100 patients to open pre-peritoneal, Lichtenstein, TAPP, or
TEP. Laparoscopic approaches were associated with less pain and faster return to activity.
Ozmen et al. [3] compared flow dynamics and cross-sectional area of femoral vessels
following either TEP or Stoppa procedures. There was no evidence of DVT or significant
changes in flow characteristics as a result of mesh placement in either technique.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Bender O, Balci FL, Yuney E, Saglam F, Ozdenkaya Y, Sari YS (2009) Systemic inflammatory
response after Kugel versus laparoscopic groin hernia repair: a prospective randomized
trial. Surg Endosc 23:2657–2661. (1B)
Hamza Y, Gabr E, Hammadi H, Khalil R (2010) Four-arm randomized trial comparing laparoscopic
and open hernia repairs. Int J Surg 8:25–28. (1B)
Ozmen M, Zulfikaroglu B, Ozalp N, Moran M, Soydinc P, Ziraman I (2010) Femoral vessel
blood flow dynamics following totally extraperitoneal vs Stoppa procedure in bilateral
inguinal hernias. Am J Surg 199:741–745. (1B)
Chapter 14: Single port surgery or reduced ports in endoscopic/laparoscopic hernia
repair (New chapter)
Davide Lomanto
Search terms: Inguinal Hernia, Laparoscopy/methods, Surgical instruments, Single port,
Single port access, Reduced port surgery, Surgical technique, Laparoscopic surgery,
Minimally invasive surgery.
Search machines
Pubmed, Embase and Medline.
Number of publications
24 Papers are relevant: 5 level 2B; 19 level 4.
Statements
Level 2B
Single port laparoscopic hernia repair is a safe and feasible alternative to traditional
multiport technique although has not been showed to be superior or more effective.
Single port laparoscopic hernia repair may offer a better cosmetic outcome and patient’s
satisfaction.
Single port laparoscopic hernia repair has no increased risk compared with standard
multiport technique.
Homemade ports, as an alternative to commercially available ports, provides a feasible
and safe alternatives
Recommendations
Grade B
Single port laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is safe and feasible alternative options
to conventional laparoscopy in selected cases but further RCTs are needed.
Both TAPP and TEP can be performed with equal results in selected cases.
Comments
In the last few years, minimally invasive surgery has continued to develop by further
reducing surgical aggression and scars hence Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic
Surgery (NOTES) came into light. This new approach created a lot of enthusiasm but
still several issues and challenges have arisen and need to be resolved before a full
clinical acceptance [1–3]. While improving on these procedures, the idea of reducing
the number and size of ports, so-called single incision access surgery came into limelight.
In the beginning by using multiple fascial punctures and later using dedicated devices
that were ad hoc developed and marketed. Through a small wound incision between 1.5
and 2.5 cm, the single port device can be inserted and allow multiple access for telescope
and instrumentations to carried out the surgery. Early reports of different procedures
have been published and the cosmetic advantage offered by the single port endo-laparoscopic
surgery (SPES) make this approach attractive option for patients who require additional
benefit of cosmesis. Further clinical studies involving large series of patients,
are needed to confirm the benefits and advantages of SPES over standard procedure.
Some case reports and cohort studies have been published on single port inguinal hernia
repair [4–30]. Two RCT Trials has been published recently from high volume centers
in which safety, efficacy and improved cosmesis was confirmed with an overall outcome
similar to standard technique [31–32].
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Romanelli JR, Earle DB (2009) Single-port laparoscopic surgery: an overview. Surg
Endosc 23:1419–1427. (5)
Allemann P, Schafer M, Demartines N (2010) Critical appraisal of single port access
cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1476–1480. (2C)
Tracy CR, Raman JD, Cadeddu JA, Rane A (2008) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery
in urology: where have we been and where are we heading? Nat Clin Pract Urol 5:561–568.
(5)
Goo TT,Goel R, Lawenko M, Lomanto D (2010) Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal
(TAPP) hernia repair via a single port. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:389–390.
(4)
Jacob BP, Tong W, Reiner M, Vine A, Katz LB (2009) Single incision total extraperitoneal
(one SITE) laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using a single access port device.
Hernia 13:571–572. (4)
Buckley FP III, Vassaur H, Monsivais S, Sharp NE, Jupiter D, Watson R, Eckford J (2014)
Comparison of outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy and
traditional three-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy at a single institution. Surg Endosc
28(1): 30–35. (2B)
Yilmaz H, Alptekin H (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal
herniorrhaphy for bilateral inguinal hernias using conventional instruments. Surg
Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(3):320–323. (4)
Takayama S, Nakai N, Sakamoto M, Takeyama H (2014) Single-incision laparoscopic herniorrhaphy
for inguinal hernia repair. Surg Today 44(3):513–516. (4)
Pesta W, Kurpiewski W, Luba M, Szynkarczuk R, Grabysa R (2012) Single incision laparoscopic
surgery transabdominal pre-peritoneal hernia repair—case report. Wideochir Inne Tech
Malo Inwazyjne 7(2):137–139. (4)
Fuentes MB, Goel R, Lee-Ong AC, Cabrera EB, Lawenko M, Lopez-Gutierrez J, Lomanto
D (2013) Single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery (SPES) for totally extraperitoneal
inguinal hernia: a critical appraisal of the chopstick repair. Hernia 17(2):217–221.
(2B)
Soon Y, Yip E, Onida S, Mangat H (2012) Single-port hernia repair: a prospective cohort
of 102 patients. Hernia 16(4):393–396. (2B)
Kim JH, Park SM, Kim JJ, Lee YS (2011) Initial experience of single port laparoscopic
totally extraperitoneal hernia repair: nearly-scarless inguinal hernia repair. J Korean
Surg Soc 81(5):339–343. (2B)
Shih TY, Wen KC, Lin KY, Uen YH (2012) Transumbilical, single-port, totally extraperitoneal,
laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using a homemade port and a conventional instrument:
an initial experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(2):162–164. (4)
Tran H (2011) Robotic single-port hernia surgery. JSLS 15(3):309–314. (4)
Tran H (2011) Safety and efficacy of single incision laparoscopic surgery for total
extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. JSLS 15(1):47–52. (2B)
Tai HC, Lin CD, Chung SD, Chueh SC, Tsai YC, Yang SS (2011) A comparative study of
standard versus laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) totally extraperitoneal
(TEP) inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 25(9):2879–2883. (2B)
Lee YS, Kim JH, Hong TH, Lee IK, Oh ST, Kim JG, Badakhanian R (2011) Transumbilical
single-port laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: initial
experience of single institute. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(3):199–202.
(4)
Chung SD, Huang CY, Wang SM, Hung SF, Tsai YC, Chueh SC, Yu HJ (2011) Laparoendoscopic
single-site totally extraperitoneal adult inguinal hernia repair: initial 100 patients.
Surg Endosc 25(11):3579–3583. (2B)
Do M, Liatsikos E, Beatty J, Haefner T, Dunn I, Kallidonis P, Stolzenburg JU (2011)
Laparoendoscopic single-site extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: initial experience
in 10 patients. J Endourol 25(6):963–968. (4)
Kucuk C (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal herniorrhaphy
for recurrent inguinal hernias: preliminary surgical results. Surg Endosc 25 (10):3228–34.
(4)
Tai HC, Ho CH, Tsai YC (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: adult hernia mesh
repair with homemade single port. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(1):42–45.
(4)
Goo TT, Goel R, Lawenko M, Lomanto D (2010) Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal
(TAPP) hernia repair via a single port. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20(6):389–390.
(4)
Roy P, De A (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic TAPP mesh hernioplasty using conventional
instruments: an evolving technique. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395(8):1157–1160. (4)
He K, Chen H, Ding R, Hua R, Yao Q (2011) Single incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal
inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 15(4):451–453. (4)
Macdonald ER, Ahmed I (2010) “Scarless” laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair using
a single port. Surgeon 8(3):179–181. (4)
Surgit O (2010) Single-incision Laparoscopic surgery for total extraperitoneal repair
of inguinal hernias in 23 patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20(2):114–118.
(4)
Agrawal S, Shaw A, Soon Y (2010) Single-port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal
inguinal hernia repair with the TriPort system: initial experience. Surg Endosc 24(4):952–956.
(4)
Menenakos C, Kilian M, Hartmann J (2010) Single-port access in laparoscopic bilateral
inguinal hernia repair: first clinical report of a novel technique. Hernia 14(3):309–312.
(4)
Cugura JF, Kirac I, Kulis T, Janković J, Beslin MB (2008) First case of single incision
laparoscopic surgery for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Acta Clin
Croat 47(4):249–252. (4)
Kroh M, Rosenblatt S (2009) Single-port, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and inguinal
hernia repair: first clinical report of a new device. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech
A 19(2):215–217. (4)
Tran H, Turingan I, Tran K, et al. (2014) Potential benefits of single-port compared
to multiport laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy: a prospective randomized controlled
study. Hernia (May 14). [Epub ahead of print]. (1B)
Wijerathne S, Agarwal N, Ramzi A, Lomanto D (2014) A prospective randomized controlled
trial to compare single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery versus conventional TEP inguinal
hernia repair. Surg Endosc (Jun 6) [Epub ahead of print]. (1B)
Chapter 15: Convalescence after hernia surgery (New chapter)
Hartmut Buhck
Search terms: Hernia, inguinal/SU, treatment outcome, recurrence, convalescence, activities
of daily living, work, exercise, weight, heavy, lifting, strain.
Search machines
MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, manual search for pertinent articles in published
article and book references
Time period of search
End of search period Dec 31st, 2013; no restriction with regard to the begin of the
search period due to the overall very limited amount of high-level evidence.
Introduction
Since intra-abdominal pressure plays a triggering—albeit not causative—role in inguinal
hernia development, the avoidance of physical strain has been traditionally recommended
after surgical repair. However, intra-abdominal pressure—the putative link between
physical strain and recurrence—has not been objectively established as a risk factor
for recurrence yet [1].
Recommendations for periods of physical inactivity after groin hernia repair are very
variable and typically rather long (4–6 weeks) [2, 3], and mostly just expert opinions
rather than the result of systematic research [4]. Presently available guidelines
are based on cohort or case–control studies of low evidence [5]. There are a precious
few reports of clinical trials on this issue [6], and reliable, evidence-based recommendations
for a requirement of physical inactivity after hernia repair are notably absent [7,
8]. Since the most current guideline [5] recommends some caution in patients doing
heavy lifting (“Probably a limitation on heavy weight lifting for 2–3 weeks is enough”)
without specifying either the probability or the threshold of “heavy”, physicians
may decide to err on the side of caution rather than recommend a too-early return
to work.
Therefore, one of the key outcome parameters of hernia surgery is based on arbitrary
decisions rather than representing an objective feature of procedural quality, diminishing
the informative value of the published results. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence
to support the surgeon while making a decision of quite substantial impact: False
recommendations may lead to unnecessary recurrences with potentially hazardous consequences
for the patient [9, 10] on the one or economic penalties for patient and/or society
due to unnecessary vocational downtime on the other hand.
The issue of convalescence is of particular importance in the context of endoscopic
hernia repair since reduced postoperative pain and shorter periods of recovery are
some of the key advantages of this approach. Due to the relative paucity of pertinent
published evidence, the literature search for the issue of convalescence was not limited
in terms of publication dates and evidence levels.
A meticulous analysis of all published evidence yielded no indication for a relationship
between postoperative physical strain and risk of hernia recurrence. The only randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) on the issue were performed in the same hospital in Nottingham
and published about 30 years ago [11–13]. After an initial 3-week period of physical
inactivity, patients received different recommendations for the ensuing time (immediate
full occupational and recreational activity vs. activity according to the GP’s recommendation
[11, 12] or reduced strain for an additional 3 months [13], respectively). GPs recommended
extended periods of restrained activity, and immediate full workload had no adverse
effects. On the contrary, the only recurrences observed by Taylor et al. [13] occurred
after the extended reduced activity.
In a number of retrospective studies, patients were advised to resume full physical
activities early after the operation, and did so without any negative impact on the
recurrence rates, which were well under 1 % [14, 15]. In addition, a sizeable number
of RCTs compared different hernia repair techniques and employed return to work and/or
activities of daily living (ADL) as endpoints; these trials uniformly failed to demonstrate
a relationship between early rehabilitation on the one and hernia recurrence on the
other hand [8]. On the contrary, there are some studies showing the opposite tendency:
In a prospective comparison of different recommendations for convalescence presented
by Bay-Nielsen et al. [16], three groups of patients treated with the Liechtenstein
procedure received the following advice:
immediate full activity without strain limits (n = 1,069).
reduced activity for 3–4 weeks (n = 1,306) or
no specific recommendations (8,297 reference patients from the Danish Hernia Database).
There were no significant differences between groups in terms of hernia recurrence,
but alas, the recurrence rate in the first group was only half as high (0.7 %) as
in the others (1.6 and 1.4 %, respectively). This difference is hardly attributable
to the early resumption of activity but probably reflects a better standard of care
in the study center; however, it underlines the absence of an increased recurrence
risk due to early rehabilitation when the surgical procedure was faultless. The importance
of the latter point is emphasized by a relatively broad spread of recurrence incidence
between centers that suggests procedure-related prognostic factors; for instance,
the German Quality Assurance Office [17] and the European Hernia Society [5] reported
recurrence rates of as low as 0 % and as high as 19 % in contemporary series surveys.
In conclusion, groin hernia recurrence is obviously surgeon- and not burden-related.
Obviously, the following recommendations only address the issues that are specific
for groin hernia repair; general rules and precautions of convalescence after ambulatory
or day-case surgery certainly apply to those patients as well.
Is post-surgery physical strain related to groin hernia recurrence?
Statements
Level 1B
There is no evidence for an increase in recurrence risk due to physical strain (including
heavy lifting) after groin hernia surgery irrespective of the method of surgery.
Level 3
Immediate return to work (within 1–3 days) is not associated with hernia recurrence.
Immediate resumption of activity of daily living (ADL) (within 1–3 days) is not associated
with hernia recurrence.
Short convalescence is not associated with a higher recurrence risk, and some studies
even show an inverse relation
Recommendations
Grade B
Patients should be actively assured that physical activity of any kind does not jeopardize
the stability of groin hernia repair.
Patients should be encouraged to resume work and ADL after 1 day.
What are the limiting factors for the resumption of work and physical activities after
groin hernia repair?
Statements
Level 2A
Pain is an important limiting factor for the resumption of work and physical activities
after groin hernia repair.
Level 3
Patients’ attitude toward convalescence is heavily influenced by their surgeons’ recommendation.
Return to work is heavily influenced by the type of sick-leave compensation.
Recommendations
Grade C
Effective pain control is a prerequisite of early return to work and ADL.
Grade B
Patients should be counseled with regard to availability and side effects of analgesics.
Comments
The published literature shows a wide variety of periods of sick-leave and return
to ADL; the difference between the lowest and highest published figures amounts approximately
to a factor of 10 (return to work 5–50 days, resumption of ADL 3–30 days) [8]. This
clearly demonstrates the absence of objective criteria for recommendation, and a broad
spread like that can hardly reflect the consideration of recurrence risk alone.
Careful analysis of the limiting factors for return to work and ADL shows three issues
of relevance:
Within series of patients with identical recommendations by the surgeon, pain is the
single most important reason stated for extended periods of inactivity [16, 18–20].
Between series, there are two important factors
recommendation given by the surgeon (and the resulting expectation of the patient)
[19, 21–23].
type and generosity of sick-leave compensation [10, 24, 25].
An American case–control comparison between patients covered by “worker’s compensation”
or private health insurance, respectively [24], graphically corroborates the importance
of socio-economic circumstances: not only did the former group return much later to
work (33.5 ± 4.6 vs. 12.6 ± 2.3 days), but it also reported persistent pain for a
sixfold period (111.0 ± 42.2 vs. 17.8 ± 7.9 days).
Whereas the latter point cannot be easily influenced by the surgeon, the two former
points show clear and broad avenues to shorter periods of convalescence: Clear recommendation
of very short periods (1–3 days) of physical inactivity and generous analgesics prescription,
obviously under consideration of patient- and work-specific side effects and risks.
The importance of the patient’s expectation—that is easily influenced by the surgeon—is
confirmed by the observation that dispositional pessimism as a personality trait significantly
delays return to work after hernia repair [26]. The fact that early postoperative
pain is an important precursor of chronic pain after hernia repair [27] corroborates
the recommendation of a generous analgesics prescription regimen. This issue is of
particular relevance since there are clues that chronic pain after hernia repair—a
relatively frequent residuum [28]—is promoted by early resumption of physical activities
in patients who experience early postoperative pain [29].
What period of physical inactivity, if any, is recommended after groin hernia repair?
No specific period of inactivity needs to be recommended. The typical stability of
mesh reconstructions of 50–150 N [30, 31] would allow a reconstruction size of 35–100 cm2
under consideration of the maximal physiologic intra-abdominal pressure of 14,000 N/m2;
therefore, even without the stabilizing effect of peri-reconstructional soft tissue
a properly executed mesh reconstruction is immediately stable and withstands pressure
peaks due to coughing, pressing or heavy lifting.
Tolver et al. [19] counseled patients about a 1-day expected convalescence, leading
to a resumption of work and ADL after 3–5 days without any negative consequences.
Even this recommendation is, strictly speaking, debatable, but its consequent application
would lead to an enormous reduction of socio-economic consequences of groin hernia.
Statements
Level 1B
No specific period of physical inactivity is required after groin hernia repair.
Recommendations
Grade B
The patient’s individual wish after counseling is to be respected and facilitated,
e.g., by generous analgesics prescription; however, extended periods of sick-leave
are usually not necessary and should not be supported
In which way, if any, does convalescence pertain to the choice of surgical procedure?
It is widely accepted and has been shown in numerous original articles and reviews
that endoscopic hernia repair is associated with less postoperative pain and a reduced
period of vocational and recreational downtime [18, 20, 32–49]. Due to the aforementioned
substantial variation of actual periods of return to work and ADL, the benefit cannot
be determined exactly; however, the differences are sufficiently pronounced and homogenous
to warrant the recommendation of endoscopic techniques with regard to convalescence.
Statements
Level 1A
Postoperative pain is less pronounced after endoscopic as compared to open hernia
repair.
Endoscopy hernia surgery is associated with shorter vocational downtime and earlier
resumption of ADL as compared to open hernia repair.
Recommendations
Grade B
With respect to convalescence, endoscopic hernia repair is preferable over open techniques.
Comments
All recommendations given in this chapter only apply to the conventional “heavy” (or
small pore) mesh techniques since convalescence data for lightweight (or large-pore)
mesh are not yet available. However, since there appear to be no differences in recurrence
risk depending on mesh pore size [50] we provisionally assume that the recommendations
are also applicable to large pore mesh techniques.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Hendry PO, Paterson-Brown S, de Beaux A (2008) Work related aspects of inguinal hernia:
a literature review. Surgeon 6:361–365. (2A)
Robertson GS, Burton PR, Haynes IG (1993) How long do patients convalescence after
inguinal herniorrhaphy? Current principles and practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75:30–33.
(4)
Grewal P (2013) Survey of post-operative instructions after inguinal hernia repair
in England in 2012. Hernia 18:269–272 (4)
Buhck H, Untied M, Bechstein WO (2012) Evidence-based assessment of the period of
physical inactivity required after inguinal herniotomy. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 397:1209–1214.
(2A)
Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, de Lange
D, Fortelny R, Heikkinen T, Kingsnorth A, Kukleta J, Morales-Conde S, Nordin P, Schumpelick
V, Smedberg S, Smietanski M, Weber G, Miserez M (2009) European Hernia Society guidelines
on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 13:343–403. (1A)
McIntosh A, Hutchinson A, Roberts A, Withers H (2000) Evidence-based management of
groin hernia in primary care—a systematic review. Fam Pract 17:442–447. (2A)
Bay-Nielsen M, Bisgaard T (2009) Rekonvalescens og sygemelding efter operation for
lyskebrok. [Convalescence and sick leave following inguinal hernia repair]. Ugeskr
Laeger 171:2899–2901. (5)
Lucht M (2008) Gesicherte Erkenntnisse zur Notwendigkeit einer körperlichen Schonung
nach Leistenhernienoperation—Eine Evidenzbasierte Literaturstudie. Dissertation, Johann
Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/Main. (2A)
Kavic MS (2005) Hernia repair: 2005. A reflection. Hernia 9:308–309. (5)
McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, Vale L, Grant A (2005)
Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness
and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9:1–203, iii–iv. (2A)
Bourke JB, Taylor M (1978) The clinical and economic effects of early return to work
after elective inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 65:728–731 (1B)
Bourke JB, Lear PA, Taylor M (1981) Effect of early return to work after elective
repair of inguinal hernia: Clinical and financial consequences at one year and three
years. Lancet 2:623–625. (1B)
Taylor EW, Dewar EP (1983) Early return to work after repair of a unilateral inguinal
hernia. Br J Surg 70:599–600. (1B)
Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL (1998) Long-term result and current status of the Lichtenstein
open tension-free hernioplasty. Hernia 2:89–94. (4)
Quilici PJ, Greaney EM, Jr, Quilici J, Anderson S (2000) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia
repair: optimal technical variations and results in 1700 cases. Am Surg 66:848–852
(4)
Bay-Nielsen M, Thomsen H, Andersen FH, Bendix JH, Sørensen OK, Skovgaard N, Kehlet
H (2004) Convalescence after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Br J Surg 91:362–367 (2C)
Bauer H, Fellmann E, Hermanek P, Hübner M, Jungnickel H, Kraas E, Ogasa J, Rückert
K, Rümmelein D, Siefers H-F (2004) Leistenhernie. Bundesgeschäftsstelle für Qualitätssicherung
(BQS); Düsseldorf. http://www.bqs-qualitaetsreport.de/2003/ergebnisse/leistungsbereiche/leistenhernie.
Accessed 28 Dec 2012. (2C)
Lal P, Kajla RK, Chander J, Saha R, Ramteke VK (2003) Randomized controlled study
of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal versus open Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair.
Surg Endosc 17:850–856. (2B)
Tolver MA, Strandfelt P, Forsberg G, Hjørne FP, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T (2012) Determinants
of a short convalescence after laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal
hernia repair. Surgery 151:556–563. (4)
Callesen T (2003) Inguinal hernia repair: anesthesia, pain and convalescence. Dan
Med Bull 50:203–218. (5)
Bay-Nielsen M, Thomsen H, Andersen FH, Bendix JH, Sorensen OK, Skovgaard N, Kehlet
H (2004) Convalescence after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Br J Surg 91:362–367. (2B)
Ambach R, Weiss W, Sexton JL, Russo A (2000) Back to work more quickly after an inguinal
hernia repair. Mil Med 165:747–750. (4)
Jones KR, Burney RE, Peterson M, Christy B (2001) Return to work after inguinal hernia
repair. Surgery 129:128–135. (4)
Salcedo-Wasicek MC, Thirlby RC (1995) Postoperative course after inguinal herniorrhaphy.
A case–controlled comparison of patients receiving workers’ compensation vs patients
with commercial insurance. Arch Surg 130:29–32
McLauchlan GJ, Macintyre IM (1995) Return to work after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Br J Surg 82:239–241. (5)
Bowley DM, Butler M, Shaw S, Kingsnorth AN (2003) Dispositional pessimism predicts
delayed return to normal activities after inguinal hernia operation. Surgery 133:141–146.
(4)
Tolver MA, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T (2012) Early pain after laparoscopic inguinal hernia
repair. A qualitative systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 56:549–557. (1A)
Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H (2001) Pain and functional impairment 1 year after
inguinal herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Ann Surg 233:1–7. (2C)
Kumar S, Wilson RG, Nixon SJ, Macintyre IM (2002) Chronic pain after laparoscopic
and open mesh repair of groin hernia. Br J Surg 89:1476–1479. (4)
van’t Riet M, de Vos van Steenwijk PJ, Kleinrensink GJ, Steyerberg EW, Bonjer HJ (2002)
Tensile strength of mesh fixation methods in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair.
Surg Endosc 16:1713–1716. (5)
Hollinsky C, Göbl S (1999) Bursting strength evaluation after different types of mesh
fixation in laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Surg Endosc 13:958–961. (5)
Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH,
Klinge U, Kockerling F, Kuhry E, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde
S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Sauerland S, Schug-Pass C, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D,
Chowbey P (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment
of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25:2773–2843.
(1A)
Aasvang EK, Gmaehle E, Hansen JB, Gmaehle B, Forman JL, Schwarz J, Bittner R, Kehlet
H (2010) Predictive risk factors for persistent postherniotomy pain. Anesthesiology
112:957–969. (4)
Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R (2005) Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein
and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19:188–199. (1A)
Dirksen CD, Beets GL, Go PM, Geisler FE, Baeten CG, Kootstra G (1998) Bassini repair
compared with laparoscopic repair for primary inguinal hernia: a randomised controlled
trial. Eur J Surg 164:439–447. (2B)
McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus
open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD001785. (1A)
Gholghesaei M, Langeveld HR, Veldkamp R, Bonjer HJ (2005) Costs and quality of life
after endoscopic repair of inguinal hernia vs open tension-free repair: a review.
Surg Endosc 19:816–821. (2A)
Johansson B, Hallerbäck B, Glise H, Anesten B, Smedberg S, Román J (1999) Laparoscopic
mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia
repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study). Ann Surg 230:225–231.
(1B)
Kuhry E, van Veen RN, Langeveld HR, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2007) Open
or endoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair? A systematic review. Surg
Endosc 21:161–166. (1A)
Mahon D, Decadt B, Rhodes M (2003) Prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic (transabdominal
preperitoneal) vs open (mesh) repair for bilateral and recurrent inguinal hernia.
Surg Endosc 17:1386–1390. (2B)
Memon MA, Cooper NJ, Memon B, Memon MI, Abrams KR (2003) Meta-analysis of randomized
clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg
90:1479–1492. (2A)
Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R, Jr., Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda
D, Henderson W (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia.
N Engl J Med 350:1819–1827. (1B)
Reuben B, Neumayer L (2006) Surgical management of inguinal hernia. Adv Surg 40:299–317.
(5)
Savarise MT, Simpson JP, Moore JM, Leis VM (2001) Improved functional outcome and
more rapid return to normal activity following laparoscopic hernia repair. Surg Endosc
15:574–578. (4)
Schwab JR, Beaird DA, Ramshaw BJ, Franklin JS, Duncan TD, Wilson RA, Miller J, Mason
EM (2002) After 10 years and 1903 inguinal hernias, what is the outcome for the laparoscopic
repair? Surg Endosc 16:1201–1206. (4)
Stoker DL, Spiegelhalter DJ, Singh R, Wellwood JM (1994) Laparoscopic versus open
inguinal hernia repair: randomised prospective trial. Lancet 343:1243–1245. (1B)
Tanović H, Mesihović R, Muhović S (2005) Randomized trial of TEP laparoscopic hernioplasty
versus Bassni inguinal hernia repair. Med Arh 59:214–216. (2B)
Tanphiphat C, Tanprayoon T, Sangsubhan C, Chatamra K (1998) Laparoscopic vs open inguinal
hernia repair. A randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 12:846–851. (2B)
Wellwood J, Sculpher MJ, Stoker D, Nicholls GJ, Geddes C, Whitehead A, Singh R, Spiegelhalter
D (1998) Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for inguinal
hernia: outcome and cost. BMJ 317:103–110. (2B)
Sajid MS, Leaver C, Baig MK, Sains P (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of
the use of lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br
J Surg 99:29–37. (2A)
Chapter 16: Sportsman hernia—diagnosis and treatment
Salvador Morales-Conde/Moshe Dudai, Reinhard Bittner
Search terms: Sportsmen HERNIA, Sport hernia, Athletes hernia, Athletes Pubalgia,
Groin injury/treatment, Surgery, Technique, Repair, Surgical finding, Imaging, Pathology,
Diagnosis, Etiology, Results, Complications
Search machines
PubMed; Medline.
Publications
Three new papers level 1 and 2 were identified.
Diagnostic procedures
One new, supplementary statement.
Level 2B
CT scan has high accuracy in detecting posterior wall deficiency (PWD. (new)
No new recommendations.
Indication for surgery
New statements—identical to previous except statements below.
Level 1B
Surgery (endoscopic placement of retropubic mesh) is more efficient than conservative
therapy for the treatment of sportsman’s hernia. (stronger evidence).
In Sportsman’s hernia the results of surgical repair to the posterior inguinal wall
are excellent. (stronger evidence).
For conservative treatment the use of radiofrequency denervation of both ilio-inguinal
nerve and inguinal ligament in the treatment of refractory Sportsman’s Hernia is safe
and efficacious at least in the short term, and is superior to anesthetic/steroid
injection. (new).
New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendations below.
Grade A
Endoscopic placement of retropubic mesh must be considered a serious option for Sportsman
hernia. (stronger evidence).
For conservative treatment of refractory Sportsman’s hernia, radiofrequency denervation
of both ilio-inguinal nerve and inguinal ligament must be considered, in the short
term, an alternative to anesthetic/steroid injection. (new).
Comments
One paper with level of evidence 2 has been published since 2009 based on the diagnostic
procedures of sportsmen hernias [1]. Regarding treatment two level 1 studies are available:
Comin [2] has published a study comparing radiofrequency denervation of both the ilio-inguinal
nerve and inguinal ligament to desensitize the groin region and enable the athlete
to become pain-free. This therapy was compared with local anesthetics (Bupivacaine)
and steroid (Trimacinolone) injection, showing that the use of radiofrequency denervation
is safe and efficacious at least in the short term, being superior to unaesthetic/steroid
injection.
Regarding surgery, Paajanen et al. [3] compared conservative treatment to endoscopic
mesh repair on 60 patients with a diagnosis of chronic groin pain and suspected sportsman’s
hernia. Operative repair was more effective than non-operative treatment to decrease
chronic groin pain after 1 month and up to 12 months of follow-up. Of the 30 athletes
who underwent operation, 90 % returned to sports activities after 3 months of convalescence
compared to 27 % of the 30 athletes in the non-operative group.
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Garvey JF (2012) Computed tomography scan diagnosis of occult hernia. Hernia 16:307–314.
(2B)
Comin J, Obaid H, Lammers G, Moore J, Wotherspoon M, Connell D (2013) Radiofrequency
denervation of the inguinal ligament for the treatment of ‘Sportsman’s Hernia’: a
pilot study. Br J Sports Med 47:380–386. (1B)
Paajanen H, Brinck T, Hermunen H, Airo I (2011) Laparoscopic surgery for chronic groin
pain in athletes is more effective than nonoperative treatment: a randomized clinical
trial with magnetic resonance imaging of 60 patients with sportsman’s hernia (athletic
pubalgia). Surgery 150:99–107. (1B)
Chapter 17: Evidence based training for endoscopic/laparoscopic hernia repair (New
chapter)
Juliane Bingener
Search terms: Academic Medical Centers. *Clinical Competence. *Computer Simulation.
*Computer-Assisted Instruction. *Curriculum. Education, Medical, Graduate/mt [Methods].
Education, Medical, Undergraduate/mt [Methods]. Female. Hernia, Inguinal/su [Surgery].
*Herniorrhaphy/ed [Education]. Herniorrhaphy/mt [Methods]. Humans. *Laparoscopy/ed
[Education]. *Learning. Male. Medical Staff, Hospital/ed [Education]. Program Evaluation.
Retroperitoneal Space/su [Surgery]. Time Factors. United States. Adult. Aged. Analysis
of Variance. *Computer Simulation. *Computer-Assisted Instruction. Female. General
Surgery. *Hernia, Inguinal/su [Surgery]. Hospitals, University. Humans. *Internship
and Residency. *Laparoscopy. Length of Stay. Linear Models. Male. Middle Aged. Patient
Satisfaction. Single-Blind Method. Time Factors. Treatment Outcome. User-Computer
Interface.
Search machines
PubMed/Ovid MEDLINE/Ovid EMBASE/Web of Science/Scopus.
Publications
Following the above MESH terms, 46 abstracts resulted from the search and were reviewed.
Of those, 24 full papers were reviewed. Seven papers were excluded as they only described
mathematical models underlying virtual reality (VR) simulation for hernia repair.
Five meta-analysis and systematic reviews, two randomized controlled trials, [10]
prospective cohort studies were included.
Introduction
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) is an advanced laparoscopic procedure with
a long learning curve, up to 250 procedures to proficiency [1, 2]. Zendejas et al.
showed that simulation training leads to improved outcomes for patients undergoing
laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [3]. Simulation training tools and programs exist
for both general laparoscopic task training and for procedure specific training. In
the United States, surgeons now have to obtain a cognitive and general technical skills
certification, the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS), to be eligible for
certification by the American Board of Surgery.
Beyond general task training, laparoscopic inguinal hernia specific trainers have
been developed. Concepts exist on the low-tech box trainer platform, cadaveric tissue
or the high tech virtual reality platform [4–7]. Low cost trainer boxes for laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair have been developed [4, 5]. They have face validity [5] and
improve skills [4]. On review of the literature to date, no studies were encountered
using computer simulated inguinal hernia repair for training. Along with the technical
skills trainers, surgical educators have been interested in developing training curricula
and assessment tools specific to inguinal hernia repair [8–10]. In addition, pathways
to teach cognitive components and surgical decision making have been evaluated [11,
12].
After review of the above studies, we can make the following statements regarding
levels of evidence and recommendations.
Statements
Level 1A
Simulation training improves trainee satisfaction, trainee knowledge, time and process
measure of skills, behaviors, compared to no training and to non-simulation training.
Level 1A
Computer simulation and box trainers improve operative performance.
Box training is as effective as computer simulation and results in higher learner
satisfaction
Level 1B
Cognitive training plus mastery learning on box trainers improves patient outcome
Level 2B
GOALS-GH is an objective and valid measure of skills required to perform LIHR (TAPP
and TEP).
Training on fresh frozen cadaver has higher face validity than training on a VR trainer.
Recommendations
Grade A
A simulation trainer should be available to all learners to improve operative performance.
At the current time, box trainers are preferred over computer-assisted simulation
for inguinal hernia repair.
Grade B
A proficiency-based curriculum for the available trainer tool should be established
to improve patient outcomes.
A validated assessment tool should be used to assess proficiency.
Comments
A recent study linked surgical skill to patient outcome after bariatric surgery for
surgeons in practice, underlining the increased focus on technical proficiency even
beyond the training phase. Here we reviewed the literature to provide recommendations
how to set up deliberate practice opportunities for trainees to become experts [13].
It is clear that beyond the presence of a training tool, a cognitive and technical
training curriculum is vital to improve surgeon skills and patient outcomes.
Faculty involvement does not have to be extensive, as research on feedback in other
surgical areas suggests [14–16]. Faculty feedback is moderately effective for learner
skills training. Terminal feedback is more effective than concurrent feedback for
learners’ skills retention (level 2A evidence). A small prospective study reported
that providing video-based cognitive and technical instruction along with training
parameters and a feedback session after a 6-week period increased practice frequency
and improved skills [17].
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Zendejas B, Onkendi EO, Brahmbhatt RD, Lohse CM, Greenlee SM, Farley DR (2011) Long-term
outcomes of laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repairs performed
by supervised surgical trainees. Am J Surg 201:379–383; discussion 383–374. (2C)
Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R, Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda
D, Henderson W (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia.
N Engl J Med 350:1819–1827. (1B)
Zendejas B, Cook DA, Bingener J, Huebner M, Dunn WF, Sarr MG, Farley DR (2011) Simulation-based
mastery learning improves patient outcomes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair:
a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 254:502–509; discussion 509–511. (1B)
Jain M, Tantia O, Khanna S, Sen B, Sasmal PK (2009) Hernia endotrainer: results of
training on self-designed hernia trainer box. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:535–540.
(2B)
Kurashima Y, Feldman L, Al-Sabah S, Kaneva P, Fried G, Vassiliou M (2011) A novel
low-cost simulator for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Innov 18:171–175.
(2B)
Devarajan V, Wang X, Shen Y, Eberhart R, Watson MJ, Jones D, Villegas L (2006) A novel
laparoscopic mesh placement part task trainer. Int J Med Robot 2:312–320. (5)
Devarajan V, Scott D, Jones D, Rege R, Eberhart R, Lindahl C, Tanguy P, Fernandez
R (2001) Bimanual haptic workstation for laparoscopic surgery simulation. Studies
in health technology and informatics 81:126–128. (5)
Kurashima Y, Feldman LS, Al-Sabah S, Kaneva PA, Fried GM, Vassiliou MC (2011) A tool
for training and evaluation of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: the Global Operative
Assessment Of Laparoscopic Skills-Groin Hernia (GOALS-GH). Am J Surg 201:54–61. (2B)
Adrales GL, Park AE, Chu UB, Witzke DB, Donnelly MB, Hoskins JD, Mastrangelo MJ, Jr,
Gandsas A (2003) A valid method of laparoscopic simulation training and competence
assessment. J Surg Res 114:156–162. (2C)
Adrales GL, Chu UB, Witzke DB, Donnelly MB, Hoskins D, Mastrangelo MJ, Jr., Gandsas
A, Park AE (2003) Evaluating minimally invasive surgery training using low-cost mechanical
simulations. Surg Endosc 17:580–585. (2C)
Pugh C, Plachta S, Auyang E, Pryor A, Hungness E (2010) Outcome measures for surgical
simulators: is the focus on technical skills the best approach? Surgery 147:646–654.
(2C)
Pugh CM, DaRosa DA, Santacaterina S, Clark RE (2011) Faculty evaluation of simulation-based
modules for assessment of intraoperative decision making. Surgery 149:534–542. (2B)
Ericsson K (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.
Psychol Rev 100:363–406.(5)
Brydges R, Nair P, Ma I, Shanks D, Hatala R (2012) Directed self-regulated learning
versus instructor-regulated learning in simulation training. Med Educ 46:648–656.
(1B)
Walsh CM, Ling SC, Wang CS, Carnahan H (2009) Concurrent versus terminal feedback:
it may be better to wait. Acad Med 84:S54–57. (2B)
Jensen AR, Wright AS, Levy AE, McIntyre LK, Foy HM, Pellegrini CA, Horvath KD, Anastakis
DJ (2009) Acquiring basic surgical skills: is a faculty mentor really needed? Am J
Surg 197:82–88. (1B)
Ruparel R, Zendejas B, Onkendi EO, Al Jamal YN, Farley DR, Bingener J (2013) Mentor-guided
self directed learning curriculum improves practice habits among 2nd year surgical
residents (abstract, program booklet) American College of Surgeons Annual Clinical
Congress, October 6–10, 2013, Washington, DC. (2B)
Chapter 18: Costs in endoscopic/laparoscopic and open hernia surgery (New chapter)
Reinhard Bittner, Ferdinand Köckerling
Search terms: “costs” and “inguinal hernia repair”, “costs” and “laparoscopic inguinal
hernia repair”, “cost-effectiveness” and “laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair”, “cost
benefit” and “laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair”, “quality of life” and “laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair”, “value for money” and “hernia surgery”, “ QALY” and “hernia
surgery”.
Search machines
Pubmed, Medline.
Number of publications
A total of 333 papers were identified. Due to the reason that the guidelines should
focus on the comparison “open flat mesh vs. laparoscopic mesh repair 223 had to be
to exclude because of not relevant to this topic, double publication, or referring
to pediatric hernia surgery. After reading the abstracts of the remaining 110 papers
again 43 papers were excluded because of not reporting any cost calculations. After
reading the full text of the 67 papers left, 45 papers were found useful for the development
of the presented guidelines.
Questions
Does hernia surgery offer value for money, is there a difference between open and
laparoscopic surgery?
Which factors are influencing the costs in inguinal hernia surgery?
Which of the cost factors the surgeon is able to influence?
Are there possibilities to reduce the costs?
Are there differences in direct costs (hospital) between open and laparoscopic repair?
Are there differences in indirect costs (societal) between open and laparoscopic repair?
Are there differences in the costs per QALY between open and laparoscopic surgery?
Which measures can be recommended for cost reduction?
Can additional measures be recommended for practitioners who work in countries with
limited health care resources?
Statements
Level 1A
When using disposable trocars and instruments direct costs (hospital) are higher for
laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
Total costs (hospital and societal) are lower for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
compared to open.
Operation time is a cost-relevant factor.
Time for anesthesia is a cost-relevant factor.
Experience and quality of performance are cost-relevant factors.
Simulator-training may improve quality of performance.
Level 2C
Hernia surgery is cost-effective. It may be superior to “watchful waiting” in the
long run.
Laparoscopic hernia surgery offers a higher cost-utility compared to open.
Hospitals costs for laparoscopic hernia repair may be similar or lower compared to
open but there is a large variation in cost per QALY generated by individual providers.
In hospitals with a high case load costs are lower.
Recommendations
Grade A
Non-disposable trocars and instruments must be considered.
Non-fixation techniques should be considered. Use of no or indigenous balloon must
be considered.
Operative performance and education of the surgeons must be improved.
To shorten the learning curve of traineesurgeons, simulator training should be introduced.
Grade B
In hernia disease surgery might be superior to “watchful waiting”.
From the point of cost-utility laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair may be considered.
To enhance the case load centralization of hernia surgery should be considered.
Comments
Cost calculations in treatment of inguinal hernias are difficult to perform mainly
due to the multitude of factors having some influence on the costs. In 2006 a large
randomized controlled study (RCT) showed that at 2 years “watchful waiting” (WW) is
a cost-effective treatment option for men with minimal or no groin hernia symptoms
[1]. But 7 years later the same group of authors found a long-term crossover rate
of 68 % and concluded that although WW is a reasonable and safe strategy, symptoms
will likely progress and an operation will be needed eventually [2]. In accordance
with this long-term result a large register study from UK recently published demonstrated
that hernia surgery offers value for money [3]. Moreover these authors found laparoscopic
repair more cost-effective and providing less money per quality adjusted live years
(QALY) in comparison to open surgery. Two previously published comprehensive reviews
reported similar results [4, 5].
With regard to hospital costs only nearly all RCT’s show higher costs for the laparoscopic
repair (TAPP, TEP) [6–32]. But the reliability of some of these studies should be
scrutinized. Long operating times (>60 min) [7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 19, 24, 31], high recurrence
rates for laparoscopic repair (10 %) [33] and high conversion rate (6–10 %) [21, 27,
29] reported indicate lack of experience. Moreover studies not mentioning the kind
of instruments and materials are useless for cost calculations. In contrast to these
RCT’s when analyzing routine administrative highly standardized, patient-level cost
data (collected in 15 German hospitals participating in the national cost data study)
Wittenbecher et al. 2013 [34] found lower costs for TEP/TAPP and concluded that laparoscopic
approaches are not necessarily associated with higher hospital resource consumption
than open mesh repair.
These conflicting data demonstrate clearly that cost calculations in hernia surgery
are complex because of the nearly countless number of cost-relevant variables. These
factors may be dependent on the patient, the pathology of the hernia, type of anesthesia,
case load of hernias per year, type of procedure, skills of the surgeon, operating
time, materials, meshes, type of fixation or no fixation, complications, setting in
which operation is performed (ambulatory, size of hospital/institution, country, region),
number of postoperative visits/home care, time of sick leave, outcome (recurrence
rate, quality of life), salaries of the personnel, depreciation of equipment, and
an appropriate share of the costs of the most relevant support departments: administration,
house keeping, cleaning, sterilization, equipment maintenance. According to that apparently
countless number of factors the published data with regard to costs show a huge range
from about 126 US-$ to more than 4116 US $ [3, 20]. Moreover even within one institution
there is a large variation in costs generated by individual providers [3]. Only a
few of these factors may be influenced by the surgeon. Operating time, quality of
the surgical intervention as well as the choice of instruments and materials are directly
under the responsibility of the surgeon [29, 30, 34, 35]. In most of the papers it
is stated that the higher costs found in laparoscopic surgery is mainly a reflection
of the greater use of expensive disposable equipment and longer operating time for
laparoscopic hernia repair [5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 27, 30]. Multiple sensitivity
analyses demonstrated that when use of disposable trocars, graspers, preperitoneal
balloon, and stapling devices (“tacker”) were included, direct costs and charges were
significantly higher for laparoscopic hernia repair. On the other hand, in a large
volume laparoscopic surgery center with minimal use of disposable instruments and
avoidance of preperitoneal balloon and tackers for mesh fixation, the actual direct
costs of laparoscopic repair are comparable to open repairs [24]. Controversially
discussed are the use of low-cost meshes [36] and the use of indigenous dilatation
balloons [37] for further cost reduction. But without doubt experience is a significant
factor for decreasing operating time as well as the rate of complications, recurrences
and long-term complaints like chronic pain [29, 30, 34, 38]. In so far surgical performance
is directly correlated to quality of life and QALY’S.
Different to the results of the calculations of hospital costs (direct) nearly all
RCT’s, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis prove that the societal costs(indirect)
are less after laparoscopic repair mainly due to more rapid recovery and a shorter
time of sick leave [4, 5, 7, 10–13, 15, 16, 19, 30, 35] when compared to open surgery.
In summary, up to now due to the higher hospital costs worldwide acceptance of laparoscopic
hernia repair is low despite less pain and more rapid recovery in comparison to open
surgery. Therefore cost containment measures are to consider like increase of the
case load (more rapid depreciation of equipment costs, large experience) [39], shortening
of the learning curve and improvement of surgical performance by standardizing the
technique and systematic training [38, 40]. Other recommendations are using non-disposable
trocars and instruments [24, 25, 41, 42, 43], avoidance of “tacker” fixation [44]
and implantation of low-cost meshes [36, 45].
References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
Stroupe KT, Manheim LM, Luo P, Giobbie-Hurder A, Hynes DM, Jonasson O, Reda DJ, Gibbs
JO, Dunlop DD, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr (2006) Tension-free repair versus watchful waiting
for men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias: a cost-effectiveness
analysis. J Am Coll Surg 203(4):458–468. (1B)
Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Ramanan B, Arya S, Turner SA, Li X, Gibbs JO, Reda DJ, Investigators
of the Original Trial (2013) Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of
a nonoperative strategy (watchful waiting) for men with minimally symptomatic inguinal
hernias. Ann Surg 258(3):508–515. (1B)
Coronini-Cronberg S, Appleby J, Thompson J (2013) Application of patient-reported
outcome measures (PROMs) data to estimate cost-effectiveness of hernia surgery in
England. J R Soc Med 106: 278–287. (2C)
Stylopoulos N, Gazelle GS, Rattner DW (2002) A cost-utility analysis of treatment
options for inguinal hernia in 1,513,008 adult patients. Surg Endosc 17(2):180–189.
(1A)
Gholghesaei M, Langeveld HR, Veldkamp R, Bonjer HJ (2005) Costs and quality of life
after endoscopic repair of inguinal hernia vs open tension-free repair: a review.
Surg Endosc 19(6):816–821. (1A)
Payne JH Jr, Grininger LM, Izawa MT, Podoll EF, Lindahl PJ, Balfour J (1994) Laparoscopic
or open inguinal herniorrhaphy? A randomized prospective trial. Arch Surg 129(9):973–979;
(1B)
Brooks DC (1994) A prospective comparison of laparoscopic and tension-free open herniorrhaphy.
Arch Surg 129(4):361–366. (2B)
Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, Goodwin A, Gray A, Gordon J, Storie J, Britton J, Collin
J (1995) Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal
hernia: early results. BMJ 311(7011):981–985. (1B)
Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, Goodwin A, Gray A, Gordon J, Storie J, Britton J, Collin
J (1996) An economic evaluation of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair.
J Public Health Med 18(1):41–48. (1B)
Liem MS, Halsema JA, van der Graaf Y, Schrijvers AJ, van Vroonhoven TJ (1997) Cost-effectiveness
of extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized comparison with
conventional herniorrhaphy. Coala trial group. Ann Surg 226(6):668–675(1B)
Kald A, Anderberg B, Carlsson P, Park PO, Smedh K (1997) Surgical outcome and cost-minimization-analyses
of laparoscopic and open hernia repair: a randomised prospective trial with one year
follow up. Eur J Surg 163(7):505–510. (1B)
Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Hulkko A (1998) A cost and outcome comparison between laparoscopic
and Lichtenstein hernia operations in a day-case unit. A randomized prospective study.
Surg Endosc 12 (10):1199–1203. (1B)
Wellwood J, Sculpher MJ, Stoker D, Nicholls GJ, Geddes C, Whitehead A, Singh R, Spiegelhalter
D (1998) Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for inguinal
hernia: outcome and cost. BMJ 317(7151):103–110. (1B)
Paganini AM, Lezoche E, Carle F, Carlei F, Favretti F, Feliciotti F, Gesuita R, Guerrieri
M, Lomanto D, Nardovino M, Panti M, Ribichini P, Sarli L, Sottili M, Tamburini A,
Taschieri A (1998) A randomized, controlled, clinical study of laparoscopic vs open
tension-free inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 12(7):979–986. (1B)
Johansson B, Hallerbäck B, Glise H, Anesten B, Smedberg S, Román J (1999) Laparoscopic
mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia
repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study. Ann Surg 230(2):225–231.
(1B)
Jönsson B, Zethraeus N (2000) Costs and benefits of laparoscopic surgery—a review
of the literature. Eur J Surg Suppl(585):48–56. (1A)
Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group (2001) Cost-utility
analysis of open versus laparoscopic groinhernia repair: results from a multicentre
randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 88(5):653–61. (1B)
Papachristou EA, Mitselou MF, Finokaliotis ND (2002) Surgical outcome and hospital
cost analyses of laparoscopic and open tension-free hernia repair. Hernia. 6(2):68–72.
(3)
Schneider BE, Castillo JM, Villegas L, Scott DJ, Jones DB (2003) Laparoscopic totally
extraperitoneal versus Lichtenstein herniorrhaphy: cost comparison at teaching hospitals.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 13(4):261–267. (3)
Vale L, Ludbrook A, Grant A (2003) Assessing the costs and consequences of laparoscopic
vs. open methods of groin hernia repair: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 17(6):844–849.
(1A)
Hildebrandt J, Levantin O (2003) Tension-free methods of surgery of primary inguinal
hernias. Comparison of endoscopic, total extraperitoneal hernioplasty with the Lichtenstein
operation. Chirurg 74(10):915–921. (1B)
Hahn S, Whitehead A (2003) An illustration of the modelling of cost and efficacy data
from a clinical trial. Stat Med 22(6):1009–1024. (1B)
Anadol ZA, Ersoy E, Taneri F, Tekin E (2004) Outcome and cost comparison of laparoscopic
transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair versus Open Lichtenstein technique. J Laparoendosc
Adv Surg Tech A 14(3):159–163. (3)
Khajanchee YS, Kenyon TA, Hansen PD, Swanström LL(2004) Economic evaluation of laparoscopic
and open inguinal herniorrhaphies: the effect of cost-containment measures and internal
hospital policy decisions on costs and charges. Hernia 8(3):196–202. (2b)
McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, Vale L, Grant A (2005)
Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness
and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9(14):1–203. (1A)
Hynes DM, Stroupe KT, Luo P, Giobbie-Hurder A, Reda D, Kraft M, Itani K, Fitzgibbons
R, Jonasson O, Neumayer L (2006) Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open mesh
hernia operation: results of a Department of Veterans Affairs randomized clinical
trial. J Am Coll Surg 203(4):447–457. (1B)
Butler RE, Burke R, Schneider JJ, Brar H, Lucha PA Jr (2007) The economic impact of
laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: results of a double-blinded, prospective, randomized
trial. Surg Endosc 21(3):387–390. (1B)
Kuhry E, van Veen RN, Langeveld HR, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2007) Open
or endoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair? A systematic review. Surg
Endosc 21(2):161–166. (1A)
Langeveld HR, van’t Riet M, Weidema WF, Stassen LP, Steyerberg EW, Lange J, Bonjer
HJ, Jeekel J (2010) Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein
(the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 251(5):819–824. (1B)
Eklund A, Carlsson P, Rosenblad A, Montgomery A, Bergkvist L, Rudberg C (2010) Swedish
Multicentre Trial of Inguinal Hernia Repair by Laparoscopy (SMIL) study group. Br
J Surg. 97(5):765–771. (1B)
Smart P, Castles L (2012) Quantifying the costs of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
ANZ J Surg 82(11):809–812. (3)
Wang WJ, Chen JZ, Fang Q, Li JF, Jin PF, Li ZT (2013) Comparison of the effects of
laparoscopic hernia repair and Lichtenstein tension-free hernia repair. J Laparoendosc
Adv Surg Tech A 23(4):301–305. (1B)
Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda
D, Henderson W; Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 456 Investigators (2004)
Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350(18):1819–1827.
(1B)
Wittenbecher F, Scheller-Kreinsen D, Röttger J, Busse R (2013) Comparison of hospital
costs and length of stay associated with open-mesh, totally extraperitoneal inguinal
hernia repair, and transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: an analysis
of observational data using propensity score matching. Surg Endosc 27(4):1326–1333.
(2C)
Aly O, Green A, Joy M, Wong CH, Al-Kandari A, Cheng S, Malik M (2011) Is laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair more effective than open repair? J Coll Physicians Surg Pak
21(5):291–296. (1A)
Yang J, Papandria D, Rhee D, Perry H, Abdullah F (2011) Low-cost mesh for inguinal
hernia repair in resource-limited settings. Hernia 15(5):485–489. (1A)
Misra MC, Kumar S, Bansal VK (2008) Total extraperitoneal (TEP) mesh repair of inguinal
hernia in the developing world: comparison of low-cost indigenous balloon dissection
versus direct telescopic dissection: a prospective randomized controlled study. Surg
Endosc 22(9):1947–1958. (1B)
Koperna T (2004) How long do we need teaching in the operating room? The true costs
of achieving surgical routine. Langenbecks Arch Surg 389(3):204–208. (3)
Chatterjee S, Laxminarayan R (2013) Costs of surgical procedures in Indian hospitals.
BMJ Open 20:3(6). pii: e002844.(2C)
Kurashima Y, Feldman LS, Kaneva PA, Fried GM, Bergman S, Demyttenaere SV, Li C, Vassiliou
MC (2014) Simulation-based training improves the operative performance of totally
extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized
controlled trial. Surg Endosc 28(3):783–788. (1B)
Lau H, Lee F, Patil NG, Yuen WK (2002) Two hundred endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal
hernioplasties: cost containment by reusable instruments. Chin Med J (Engl) 115(6):888–891.
(3)
Farinas LP, Griffen FD (2000) Cost containment and totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic
herniorrhaphy. Surg Endosc 14(1):37–40. (3)
Basu S, Chandran S, Somers SS, Toh SK (2005) Cost-effective laparoscopic TEP inguinal
hernia repair: the Portsmouth technique. Hernia 9(4):363–367. (3)
Taylor C, Layani L, Liew V, Ghusn M, Crampton N, White S (2008) Laparoscopic inguinal
hernia repair without mesh fixation, early results of a large randomised clinical
trial. Surg Endosc 22(3):757–762. (1B)
Cavallo JA, Ousley J, Barrett CD, Baalman S, Ward K, Borchardt M, Thomas JR, Perotti
G, Frisella MM, Matthews BD (2014) A material cost-minimization analysis for hernia
repairs and minor procedures during a surgical mission in the Dominican Republic.
Surg Endosc 28(3):747–766. (3)